In my experience with men, "hang out" or similar is far too often manspeak for some form of romantic or sexual intent to not be suspicious of. Just from our interactions to date, I'm reading your position on both axes as fairly strongly demi. As a demi person myself, here are a few filtering tips I've found that helped me.
The men who actually are interested in being companions are much more likely to center the activity: "Would you like to go here/do this"/etc. The ones who are really worth getting to know are likely to have the "here" or the "this" be public, or at an absolute minimum a place providing an open and discreet exit route. These approaches can be used both ways, and may make it so you don't need to drag sex into it to winnow the field. So, if someone wants to "hang out", something like "How about we meet up at the Saturday farmers' market?" has a good chance to reveal their true colors.
Sympathize with you on the difficulty of dealing with people and interpreting their subtext. (I don't like saying "reading", due to the hazards of extrapolating from something that isn't actually subtext.) Never mind the additional challenge of subtext languages with interpretations that diverge more widely than identifying whether "bonnet" and "boot" refer to items of clothing or auto parts. That's probably why there isn't a book like that; the variation is too wide. Genderqueer includes my hitting things like that all the time.
Wise to be wary
The men who actually are interested in being companions are much more likely to center the activity: "Would you like to go here/do this"/etc. The ones who are really worth getting to know are likely to have the "here" or the "this" be public, or at an absolute minimum a place providing an open and discreet exit route. These approaches can be used both ways, and may make it so you don't need to drag sex into it to winnow the field. So, if someone wants to "hang out", something like "How about we meet up at the Saturday farmers' market?" has a good chance to reveal their true colors.
Sympathize with you on the difficulty of dealing with people and interpreting their subtext. (I don't like saying "reading", due to the hazards of extrapolating from something that isn't actually subtext.) Never mind the additional challenge of subtext languages with interpretations that diverge more widely than identifying whether "bonnet" and "boot" refer to items of clothing or auto parts. That's probably why there isn't a book like that; the variation is too wide. Genderqueer includes my hitting things like that all the time.