Robert Baratheon

Eiuol - As already explained, I'm not sure what you would accept as proof of a widespread social norm. You don't accept references in popular entertainment. You don't accept online memes. You don't accept Wikipedia or a cultural dictionary maintained by thousands of users. Lacking the ability to conduct a society-wide poll, I'm pretty sure nothing I could reasonably present would convince you. Please feel free to correct me on that point.

Ludicious - Like Nicky, you are ignoring the important context in which the invitation occurred. Of course if you have a longstanding nonsexual friendship with someone then that context will control reasonable expectations. If the invitation occurs at the end of a date bar hopping, however, then it's likely the man is trying to initiate a sexual encounter and the woman should understand that subtext. I included the parenthetical for exactly the reason I stated. We can assume the woman's account is true for our discussion purposes, but at the same time, it's important to keep in mind that this is only one side of the story. That doesn't mean the woman is a liar. People interpret and recall events differently; they emphasize different things. If we only looked at the plaintiff's case, every trial would come out against the defendant. I doubt the man involved would have written the article the same way as the woman did, so we should refrain from condemning him until we hear his side of the events - that's all I was saying.

Dream Weaver - If something is objectively true, is it disparaging to point it out? Are you not aware that the history of the Objectivist philosophy is dominated by warring factions, schisms, endless arguments over purity, and denunciations by strong personalities of other strong personalities? Amd that all of this continues to this day? Rand, the Brandens, Peikoff, Brook, Kelly, the ARI, TAS, the warring blogs RoR, OL, SOLO-P, and many others, etc. etc. It's a history of intra-movement hatred, resentment, and conflict. Does it make me a disparager of Rand to point out that maybe everyone should just... you know... stop? I'm wondering why you are focusing on attacking me, in light of the many OO discussions I have generated, and not attacking the other Objectivist writers and podcasters who post conspicuously Reblogged articles and essays on OO without even participating in the discussions as I do.

Urban Dictionary - "Cup of Coffee" - Is code for sex. When you ask someone to get a "Cup of coffee" you assume they know what it means. Urban Dictionary - "Coffee" - Simply it means sex "hey u wanna come up for coffee" really he/she means hey u wanna have sex. Wikipedia - Hot Coffee Mod - Hot Coffee is a normally inaccessible mini-game in the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas...The name of the mod is derived from the girlfriend's offer for the main character to come into her home for "coffee", a euphemism for sex. Sexually Oblivious Rhino Meme - "Do I want to come in for coffee? But it's 3am. I'll be up all night."

Eiuol - What would constitute "proof" to you that a social norm exists? You've already rejected popular entertainment as a valid indication, so what would be? I can't very well survey the entire population for you.

The misconception you and another poster seem to be having is the idea that euphemisms constitute a type of "trick" one party is playing on another. In fact, the whole purpose of the exercise is both people are supposed to understand the subtext of the situation while being able to save face in the event of rejection. This empowers everyone involved by allowing them to "feel out" social situations without risking the social capital they already have. This may seem "illogical" to the more Randroid personality types out there, but it's actually a sophisticated and highly useful convention that well-adjusted people use with success and to mutual benefit in a variety of contexts.

I wish you luck. You're going to be slapped a lot before you find her. I would like to note that a cultural norm of not discussing something openly doesn't necessarily imply there is anything morally wrong with the thing itself. For example, there is nothing morally wrong with having a bowel movement, but we don't typically announce when we are having one or provide details. Or if you don't like that comparison, there is nothing wrong with earning an income - whatever the amount may be - yet I doubt many here would want it publicly known how much they earn.

I realize Objectivists aren't known for being the most socially perceptive people (it appears the Sheldon character on Big Bang Theory isn't such a caricature after all), so at the risk of belaboring what the vast majority of people intuitively navigate, I'm going to lay out how things generally do and do not work at the end of a successful date. Do Not: Ask a woman to go upstairs to have sex with you. Reason: This makes the woman feel like a prostitute and shows you lack critical social skills and awareness. Do: Ask a woman to come upstairs for a reason other than sex, such as "coffee" at 12am. Reason: This gives the woman an easy out if she wants it along with the option of progressing toward sex in a socially acceptable manner that doesn't make her seem like a whore. If she says no, you can still remain friends or go on another date under the plausible deniability of the circumstances. See how that works? Elegant in its simplicity. As long as one of the parties isn't an aspergers case, it's a widely accepted social norm that generally works fine and doesn't need progressive reforming.

Who couldn't find a hamburger? I'm still confused.

I don't know of anyone who blames millenials for the state of politics or the economy. The consensus seems to be that they are getting screwed by globalism and the Ponzi schemes and excesses of generations past.

It's not the obligation that's at issue, it's whether the receiver of the signal could reasonably have been expected to respond the way they did. Even if we remove the legal obligation from the equation, if somebody fakes drowning in a pool and somebody else jumps in to save him and gets hurt, the faker is responsible for that injury. The sitcoms prove that the subtext of coming inside after a date for whatever reason (especially coffee) is pervasive in U.S. culture and most people understand what it means. It's also not *just* the invitation up to the hotel room for coffee- it's everything that happened before that point as well. The invitation out. The back and forth all night. The barhopping. Taking shots together. All of that creates important context that the woman should have been aware of and managed expectations accordingly. At a minimum, she should have been aware it might be giving the man the wrong idea. She is responsible for allowing the situation to escalate to the point where she was on a man's bed in his hotel room at midnight after a night out drinking with him.

Lol, wut

DonAthos - You aren't missing anything. Those were my points exactly. Thank you. Eiuol - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "anecdotal evidence" or "well regarded." The actions of the woman under the circumstances sent the signal. I've already explained why I feel it was reasonable to interpret them as a signal according to prevailing social norms in the U.S. I don't agree that the receiver of a signal is responsible for an objectively reasonable interpretation under the circumstances. That's kind of like saying if I shoot a bullet, the recipient is responsible for being in the way and dying. Senders of signals are responsible for reasonable responses to the signals they send. Call 911 frivolously and you are responsible for the police showing up.

Have it your way. Seinfeld had the exact same joke. A woman asks George up to her place for coffee after a night out and he declines, saying it's too late and it "keeps me up." She stares at him like the dope he is. He spends the rest of the episode kicking himself for the blunder: "People this stupid shouldn't be allowed to live." Laugh track rolls. "Coffee is not coffee in the middle of the night." You can't reasonably argue people aren't aware of the "cliché" that going back to a hotel room at midnight for coffee means sex. It's pervasive across popular culture.

No, THAT is not what a cliche is. A cliche is something that is commonplace, banal, and overused (dictionary.com). This is why "coming back for coffee" appears in so much of popular entertainment: the meaning is obvious to the average viewer. It's not something that isn't true, as you are implying. It's something that IS true to the point of obviousness ("truism, maxim" - dictionary.com).

You're introducing context here that wasn't present in the original scenario. Of course if you have a long history and friendship with a person then that can inform what is reasonable to assume from them. This was a man she didn't know and had invited her out barhopping with him, and only him, all night. It's a totally different context from going out with a longtime friend and crashing at his place.

Nicky - I'm not aware of any culture in which directly asking a woman to come back to your place for sex would not be considered a faux pas. Going back to a hotel or apartment for "coffee" is, as you said, a cliche - meaning it's widely understood as a pretext or euphemism for a romantic encounter. I recently watched an episode of the Big Bang Theory in which Penny asks the hopelessly inept nerd Stuart into her place for coffee. He says, "A little late for coffee, isn't it?" Penny stares at him like the buffoon he is, then says, "Ohhh, you think coffee means coffee...that's so sweet." Then asexual aspergers-case Sheldon comes out of his apartment and asks what they are doing. "A little late for coffee isn't it?" he repeats. Penny rolls her eyes as the laugh track plays in the background. The joke is only these two bumbling losers could be so socially inept as to not understand the clear subtext of the situation.

There is a world of difference between mere flirting and barhopping with a man all night, doing shots with him, and then agreeing to go back to his hotel at midnight. That creates a reasonable expectation of sex. If the woman doesn't want sex, then she is leading the man on.

I have to disagree with you there. People are responsible for understanding the contexts and cultures in which they operate, and they are responsible for any reasonable expectations they create in others. Reasonable is the key word there, but it was reasonable for him to think she wanted sex under the circumstances, at least before she began protesting.

You seemed like you were going to disagree with me at first, but then you went on and agreed with everything I said! Simply by being there, in his hotel room for "coffee" at midnight, on his bed, after barhopping all night, sends an incredibly strong signal to her male companion that she's up for a sexual encounter. She apparently didn't realize she was sending this signal, but it was sent nonetheless, and she is responsible for that transmission. However, you are of course correct to point out the man should have backed off when he realized he had been receiving false signals all night. Just realize that the following statement you made... ...while eminently reasonable, will get you shouted down as a pro-rape, victim-blaming monster of the patriarchy by the feminist community. I had a number of discussions earlier tonight in relation to my blog post in which I was told anything short of explicit verbal consent is rape (although they later had to concede that the woman handing the man a condom would count as a nonverbal exception to their rule).

"Blaming the Victim" on The New Versailles

The kindest thing to be said about it is it demonstrates the importance of semantic hygiene.

It's really just a stupid word game based upon the inherently ambiguous nature of pronouns. It's not really a logic test at all. I think the students passed.

Doesn't the attitude "I refuse to try because something might turn out badly" run counter to much of Objectivist philosophy?

If this is exactly how he framed it, then all of the "artichokes are delicious" examples should have passed the challenge. A subject change is embedded in the instructions of the challenge ("true for one person and not true for another"). Therefore, switching out one subject for another, which is what the students did, is a necessary condition of meeting the challenge he presented.