Naw. You did right. That is a power game. You have no guarantee that they would have kept the bargain had you missed, and either way the underlying goal there was to see if they could make you miss. Asides any sort of ego validation, that can serve as a test to see how mailable you are. Consider this- asides simply asking for a date- let’s say they were too shot or wanted to be playful- they could have set a condition such as “if you make the next one” or “make three in a row” or “ do a backwards dunk” the contingency for a date. By basing the contingency on a success condition, the playful element is preserved BUT, there is an element of chance- you might not succeed. Basing it on failure means that even if you have poor skills or make a mistake you can still meet the criteria, and if you are skilled (which you demonstrated you are), you could easily fail on purpose. So they set a condition with 100% success but only IF you were unskilled, unlucky, or would willfully do poorly to gain
acceptance. Now, arguably by setting the condition as something you have near total control over (even the best players miss sometimes but even the worst players can, outside insane flukes, fail a dunk on purpose), they were essentially asking “yes or no” in a playful way. That said- the conditions they set were highly public. Arguably one could consider that a test of ego- are you someone who would miss a single dunk in front of friends and onlookers to secure a date, or is your pride such that even for a date you would not fail a dunk “just for fun” and not even with any real reward for success? That said- it’s still a game and inconsiderate towards you.
Despite any consideration we might give the women in the story, that interaction was about their own validation. Are you interested or attracted enough to do as they say? Will you put your desire for a date above your self image or public image? While they weren’t asking you to run around in a dog collar licking toilets or anything- what was being out forward was that you degrade yourself or be subservient to gain acceptance by them. I personally wouldn’t consider that a good sign in a perspective relationship. If it really was a “sure thing” and earnest- my values suggest they would get that you perform a task of some degree of skill and even if you failed, provided the attempt seemed earnest, they would have still offered the date as a “consolation prize.”
They could also have set up a “no lose” date as such to start while maintaining playfulness by saying something akin to: “if you make XYZ basket/conditions, my friend will take you <to the movies/for dinner/etc.>, but if you miss, you have to take her <to the dance Friday/to dinner/etc.>” this condition preserves the same certainty of the loss case and preserves a playfulness, but it places you in a position where you don’t have to fail publicly. It also avoids setting a perception that you must “prove your worthiness” which could be considered a red flag as well if one sets a date condition requiring you to prove yourself and avoids the problematic objectification of you “winning” a date like a “trophy.”
There are other methods and levels to this- “if you try to reverse dunk and make it you get to take my friend out, but if you miss you have to take me out…” or similar. This method likewise offers some guarantee but the test is in your reaction. So to begin- if you do not attempt the reverse dunk or whatever is specified- the girls are aware you aren’t interested which offers them the same protection to their egos as setting a miss condition. Secondly, if your initial or final reaction is one of joy at the prospect of dating the friend who isn’t the interested party, the two would be aware that you are less interested in the “win” condition friend than the girl speaking on behalf of the friend which might change their perceptions. Thirdly, the advocating friend could always bait and switch for the interested friend at the time of your date- thusly ensuring that the 100% date condition still exists and maintaining a playful element. There is more to it and more variations and each has
potential red flags and such, but ultimately it is my view that under the conditions set the impression I would get of the woman/women approaching you is such that I wouldn’t feel a terrible loss about not dating them and would likely consider myself lucky for avoiding the whole affair.
It is my personal experience that in the game dynamic between men and women you can tell a lot by how people interact through games. Some is personal preference- I believe it is best to favor a partner with some level of competitiveness, how much depends on your own personality, to be clear a competitive nature and a combative or adversarial nature are not the same, but some level of competitiveness is generally indicative of someone who has had to work and will work for and at what they want in life.
There are cases where one might want to let someone else win- sometimes for example you can tell an opponent is getting frustrated and isn’t enjoying themselves. Few people have fun when things are a total blow out, so if you’re extremely good at a game you might pull back a little bit here and there so that they can at least feel some sense of victory- but arguably you may not want to let a partner win against you out of pity or such. Many people are perceptive of being allowed to win and instead of good feelings it makes them feel like the victory is hollow and you cheated them or look down on them. Some depends on personality type- a person with strong personality most often will prefer being soundly trounced to being allowed to win or keep up. So there may be times based on a persons values where they let another win or at least holds back their full skill or ability, but in a case of individual talent I would say that being asked to underperform intentionally is a red flag.
They tried to set the two of you up on a date, but they wanted to make you look inadequate in the process. Note to the women reading this: that's a non-starter for most guys. Women don't want to feel unloved, guys don't want to feel inadequate. It's one of the fundamental differences between the sexes.
Of course no one wants to feel either, but for guys, feeling inadequate is worse than feeling unloved. For women, it's the opposite: feeling unloved is worse than feeling inadequte. These girls didn't get that.
It is my personal experience that in the game dynamic between men and women you can tell a lot by how people interact through games. Some is personal preference- I believe it is best to favor a partner with some level of competitiveness, how much depends on your own personality, to be clear a competitive nature and a combative or adversarial nature are not the same, but some level of competitiveness is generally indicative of someone who has had to work and will work for and at what they want in life.
-Sure, but if I don't miss she has to go on a date with me.
A good Wing Man would've gone up with him, and blocked the shot (foul or not, no basket = date).