• koper@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Yep. If anything, this is an opportunity for the guy to show that he’s not just in it for the sex.

    When I date men, one of the main things I look for is how they handle rejection.

    • latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      While I’m not all that keen on the concept of testing partners (this coming from someone who can roughly be described as a cishet guy), I do agree that it is a good indicator of both maturity and intent.

      Edit: what I mean by my first statement is that I don’t think one needs to test their partner with anything. Just be true with yourself, say no when you feel like saying no, say yes when you feel like saying yes, and take what is given as it is given (i.e. no making excuses for them if no excuses are organically evident).

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I don’t think they meant “testing” them like it’s some kind of game, hardly anyone does that and yeah it’s fucked up when they do.

        It’s just, how do they handle it when you say no, do they moan about it and act entitled or just understand you’re a human being who doesn’t feel like sex literally all the time. That’s a real good piece of evidence to how this person actually views you and their relationship to you.

        • latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Fair point, may be a cognitive bias of mine. Once burnt, twice shy and all that. I apologise for misunderstanding, and thank you for pointing it out! Truly!

          And, yep, 100% behind you. I’d say compatibility in general shows best when dealing with unpleasantness, because being couch potatoes together will always be the lowest common denominator, so to speak.