This forum's current chatter could provide some ideas for the scene: so many here cite the Constrictor
knot as one of their Top Ten, one could fancy their too-clever-by-half employment of it upon some
victim, all the while smugly asserting their expertise; and the victim, less vocal but more savvy,
taking advantage of the insight offered by Roo of that knot's weakness in its needing to be pressed
against a convex surface--conceivably one could wiggle the wrists to exploit this!
Liminal, everybody,
Please do not under any circumstances apply a constrictor to the human body. Its self gripping and concealing structure
make it virtually impossible to untie once it has tightened, especially should it have the opportunity to partly embed itself
into a fleshy area, which makes it hard, even dangerous to cut it off.
Holy Hyperbole, BatMan!!
Is it precisely this sort of balderdash I had pointed to in the quoted passage,
and speak of the devil and he shall appear!?
Where to begin: "under
any circumstance"!? Well, under the cicrumstance of learning
before typing, I just tied said dangerous and intractably secure binder knot around my very
own personal pair of wrists and--much to the consternation fo some, no doubt--I'm yet able
to play the keyboard (just imagine the contortions!); or perhaps I was able to work free (yes)?
Not to be too light in the tensioning, I tied (w/hands bound--bonus points to the knotting merit badge)
Ashley's Stopper in the shorter end, slotted it in a handy by-the-pulley thin-slotted hook,
and stepped down into an eye on the opposite end, and
t i g h t e n e d (with visions
of the local headlines:
Knot So-Called "Expert" Dies on Self-Binding !). My material
was old 8mm nylon kernmantle, rather frictive (from age, not wear), moderately firm.
No, I didn't put my full (or even half) weight upon the end--but maybe, hmmm, 30# force?
Keep in mind the friction of wraps going around flesh (or garments) and how that defeats
the real tightening of a binding, too.
Ashley's myth about the Constictor's undefeatable security has lived too long, parroted
rather than probed. YMMV w/materials & circumstance. I've found some Constrictor
whippings loosened (which I know I set fairly if not maximally tightly).
> embed itself into a fleshy area, which makes it hard, even dangerous to cut it off.
This suggests a thin cord, no? --no my 8mm. --or rather fleshy vs. scrawny hands
(aha: another charge against overeating--risk of Constrictor-embedding!) In any case,
though, cutting is rather straightforwardly UNdangerous, chopping through the one spot
of doubled (on top of) material into not flesh but the overhand crossing beneath.
BUT ...
> The constrictor works when it has a convex surface behind the compression area and
... that is not entirely likely with hands tying, where the hands might be palm-2-palm and
the knot
naturally tied with the twisted/knotted portion spanning the hands. (Recall i.p.
the premise of the OP re knotting skill, as my quoted passage remarks.) Even in other
orientations, I suspect that the victim unless very tightly bound with thin cord will be able
to make some shifting of wrists to help release nipping pressure at one side of the nip.
[Thinking of Chisholm's "nub", this is an interesting case re "knot"/"nub", as so much of
the binding is simply the span of the wraps beside each other.]
And with thin cord not expertly positioned for the crossing/knotted part to seat well into
favorably shaped surface area (again, recall the OP), there is relatively MORE room
between hands for the loosening. (But this vulnerability would likely loom large and
immediate--i.e., frustrating the tying--, with cord of say 4mm or smaller, right?)
> not at all if the knot ['s crossing point] is suspended over a concave area, ... are all essentially convex
Hmmm, I disagree: my wrists are more eliptical w/significantly flattish broad sides (top/bottom);
and the give of flesh works against sure holding, too, when wiggling.
> In my opinion the constrictor and its sister the strangle should never be use for direct restraint.
We might agree here, for exactly opposite reasons re their efficacy!
