So, do you think the following approach could work:
If you only add a special logic for certain simple actions, or for moves that emphasize the direct confrontation between both players, then when the effort values are the same and both players also choose the action you’ve marked, the move would execute simultaneously.
Hey, no worries, nothing you're saying comes across as offensive, and there's nothing to forgive
Regarding your idea: I mean, it could probably work in theory, but it introduces a lot of complexity and it's not something I intend to add.
Why the complexity? Because it adds in a lot of special cases - if it's punching then it's fine, but e.g. kick and punch fall back to the original mechanics - which is then weird, because you made a choice that is now potentially discarded with no feedback. Or if I were to implement feedback, there need to be animations to show how one actor succeeds and the other one fails - we're talking 2 x m x n animations, with m and n being the number of choices each opponent has - too many. For 3 and 3 choices I'd need to create 18 animations: the first 9 for action 1 succeeds, action 2 fails, the last 9 for action 1 fails and action 2 succeeds.
The game engine doesn't support simultaneous choices in any case.
I'm not even sure what problem the idea solves: contests exist currently and are handled through the effort mechanics. They are initiated by one side, true, but for all intents and purposes the opponent does make choices to escape or continue the action, or respond with something else. There are also actions that can fail when being initiated (the ones marked with a * in the list of choices), where the action can fail and a counter would play instead (shown through animations).
Tribbing and mutual penetration are actually implemented in the Patreon version of the game, but there are other contest type actions present in the free version already - e.g. the mutual handjob contest, the kissing contest, the bearhug contest, the test of strength, and so on. True, they don't always give the choice to the player (although a choice happens internally based on some algorithms), but that's also because it would end up breaking the action into lots of fragments
To me at least the introduction of 'special logic / cases' as game design feels wrong - I want to present the player with a clear and simple set of rules that they can always rely on.