This started as a reply I was writing on DA, but I decided to post it in Journals there and here instead. That way, I can just link to these Journals anytime I want to express and/or explain my opinions of DID.

I love the DID trope for a couple reasons:

1. It's a good way to spice up a story with some kinky fun. I personally feel a DID scene isn't complete without some visually appealing restraints. Makes sense as a way for the damsel's captors to ensure sure she stays put when they want her to while allowing them to transport her quickly and easily.

2. It's a good way to start or develop a romantic relationship, or otherwise provide emotional catharsis. As much as I love to see a damsel get captured and bound, I also want to see her get rescued, ideally by her current or future love interest. Great chance to either plant the seeds of affection between the two, or for the two to show affection to one another.

I think DID appeals to several of our primal instincts: hunting, catching, looking for an attractive mate, and protecting one's mate. The hero and villain each facilitate a portion of these instincts; the villain is the one hunting for and catching the damsel, while the hero is the one protecting her. Quite possibly, both are looking for a mate in her, though obviously the hero is going about it in a much more respectful, palatable way (or so I should hope). Thus DID is a venue for applicable morals in addition to instinctual and emotional catharsis. DID is also appealing from a narrative structure standpoint: you have a clear set up (the damsel being captured or otherwise imperiled), a built-in conflict ripe for developments and twists, and a payoff (the damsel's rescue). It's a simple, flexible trope that's applicable in virtually any genre, which is probably why it has appeared in virtually every genre.

That said, I acknowledge the trope has been done poorly before. It's not very satisfying to have the damsel only appear at the beginning and/or end of a story; I'd rather see more of the damsel throughout the story - before, during, and after her distress. In many cases, I'd argue there isn't enough DID - or rather, the DID we get often feels half-baked and shallow. Additionally, many writers make their damsel annoying by making her overly loud, whiny, selfish, or stupid, which turns the audience against her. Some writers invoke this on purpose, but it annoys and disappoints me when they do; the DID trope is much more enjoyable when it's infused with love rather than hate.

DID is often accused of being a sexist trope, but it doesn't have to be; gender-reversals or same-gender scenarios are perfectly possible too. My personal preference is for traditional "male hero, female damsel" couples of course, but sometimes, it is nice to give the girl a chance to show how much she cares in turn, as long as she's actually showing how much she cares and isn't just doing the "feminism flex"; the priority of any savior should be saving lives, not stroking their ego. (Incidentally, I most enjoy "girl helps guy" scenarios where the girl is healing the guy or nursing him back to health after he's wounded, poisoned, etc., especially if it's after he's rescued her. Emotional healing works especially well as a way for them to bond during the moment, not to mention show the guy's vulnerable, trusting side and the girl's gentle, caring side.)

Rather than spread "damsel hate", I want to spread "damsel love" and encourage well thought-out DID scenarios. When a DID is implemented well, she's one of the most endearing characters in the game or story. A good DID scenario encourages love for women by making clear just how much those women mean to us (and the same can be said for good GID scenarios and men).