The Worst Way to Reply to a Party Invite
Credit - Photo-Illustration by Chloe Dowling for TIME (Source Images: Gerard Puigmal˘—Getty Images, Liliya Krueger—Getty Images)
There are two straightforward—and simple—ways to respond to social invitations: Tell the host you'll be there, or that you won't be. Yet people find all kinds of offensive ways to reply instead.
The worst one of all is becoming increasingly common, especially by text, says Jamila Musayeva, an etiquette coach who posts videos about modern manners on YouTube. She's lost track of the number of times someone has responded to an invite by asking who else will be there—which is code for questioning whether it's actually going to be any fun. (It's even more insulting than asking what kind of food will be served.) 'It's usually like, 'I won't come unless there's someone there I want to see,'' she says. 'It's degrading the whole experience to just wanting to hang out with one person,' or a specific group of potential guests who are…not the person issuing the invite.
Read More: What to Say When You Forget Someone's Name
No wonder hosts take this kind of response personally. Musayeva equates it to saying: 'You're not interesting; I don't want to be entertained by you. I'm more interested in who's coming.' If the guest list doesn't impress, no big deal—a better offer likely awaits. 'It's definitely something you should never, ever say,' she says.
If you must find out who's going in advance, do some subtle research on the side: Maybe send a private message to a friend and ask if they're privy to any additional details about the party. Just make sure that detective work doesn't travel back to the host.
Implying that there's more fun to be had elsewhere isn't the only way you can botch your response to a social invitation. Being super vague about your plans—'Maybe I'll stop by'—or not bothering to respond at all puts the host in a tough spot, and will likely get you kicked off future invite lists.
'When you RSVP 'no,' you're doing the host a favor,' says etiquette teacher Lisa Mirza Grotts. 'Clarity is kinder than a 'maybe.'' If you're truly not sure if you can make an event, she suggests wording your response like this: 'I'd love to come, but I know what it's like to be a host, and I know you need answers. I don't want to leave you hanging.' See how your friend responds, Grotts says: They might tell you they don't mind if you play it by ear, or agree that it's best to count you out this time so they can finalize the catering order. Either way, you'll be on the same page, and no one will be waiting around, unable to sort out plans.
Read More: The One Word That Can Destroy a Friendship
Another way to avoid the infuriating question-mark response is to specify exactly when you'll get back to the host, even if they didn't mention an RSVP date. If a neighbor asks your family to come over for a cookout, for example, you might respond: 'Hey, could I get back to you on Friday?' 'Now your host knows they can check in with you on Saturday if they haven't heard from you by Friday,' says etiquette expert Lizzie Post, co-president of the Emily Post Institute. 'You've talked about it, you've had a little exchange, you've acknowledged it. Acknowledgement is such a huge part of playing a good guest, even when you're just in the role of being invited and aren't even at the party yet.'
The way you treat an invitation speaks to how much you value your relationships. As Post says, an invite to watch the game, grab a drink, or attend a dinner party is someone's way of asking if you want to spend time together. 'Even if your true, internal reaction is that no, you really wouldn't like to, it is so nice that someone out in the world wants to spend time with you,' she says.
Post suggests putting yourself in the host's shoes and proceeding with what she considers the three principles of etiquette: consideration, respect, and honesty. 'It's important to recognize that you would want people to get back to you in a timely fashion, so get back to your host in a timely fashion,' she says. 'We should treat our invitations with care, because they're the start of what connects us. They're the beginning of the way we create community.'
Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email timetotalk@time.com
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Logging off helped me orgasm for the first time
When I look back at pictures of myself in my early 20s, I see a confident young woman who was willing to talk about anything with anyone. But behind closed doors, I was hiding a secret shame that totally contradicted my public brand. I couldn't orgasm — not with a partner, not on my own. There had been fleeting attempts over the years to get the ol' engine rolling. I thought I could reason my way to climax: the internet, with its endless resources in the form of Reddit threads, message boards, and YouTube videos, seemed like the place to go. I turned online for information, emotional (first-person narratives from others who struggled) and practical (sex toys and tutorials). Nothing helped. In fact, all the accumulating knowledge only served to make me feel worse. For it to finally happen, at the age of 25, I had to strip everything back and take my sex drive fully offline for the first time. There's a scene in Eve Ensler's legendary play The Vagina Monologues when the audience hears from a woman who didn't have an orgasm until she was 72. "When she finally found her clitoris, she said she cried," the introduction goes. I remember hearing those words at the age of 18 and feeling a fluttering sense of recognition. Then came the chaser: dear god, please let me have one before I'm a septuagenarian. SEE ALSO: Is AI porn the next horizon in self-pleasure — and is it ethical? At that age, the inability to orgasm wasn't something that surprised me all that much. I'd read enough teen magazines, seen enough Sex and the City, to know all about the orgasm gap, and that 61 percent of men orgasm every time they have sex compared to 30 percent of women. Multiple studies have found that women are more likely to orgasm during masturbation than intercourse; a similarly consistent finding is that 10 percent of women never orgasm, no matter the circumstances. Yet as I moved through my twenties and failed to rectify the problem, I realised the friends I'd once bonded over this experience with weren't struggling anymore. I felt like an anomaly. But as a forthright young feminist on the cusp between the Gen Z and millennial generations, I was also unofficially educated under the tutelage of sex education YouTubers like Shan Boodram, Laci Green, and Hannah Witton. They taught me about the importance of people with vulvas knowing their bodies and having the confidence to tell sexual partners if they weren't getting them off. I spread their message far and wide. Female pleasure was so my brand that a close male friend once gave me a T-shirt with the words "The Future is Female (Ejaculation)" as a Secret Santa gift. I laughed, then went to the bathroom and cried, so deeply full of shame at the disconnect between my public confidence and inward inadequacy. Theoretically speaking, I knew just about everything there was to know about the orgasm…apart from how to have one myself. Very few people, beyond a handful of friends and former partners, knew about my struggle with anorgasmia (where people struggle to climax even with the application of sexual stimulation). I was scared of speaking the words "I can't come" into reality, or of feeling like even more of a failure if they checked in on my progress in the future and I had to tell them that no, I still couldn't. Theoretically speaking, I knew just about everything there was to know about the orgasm…apart from how to have one myself. As Emily Nagoski writes in her bestselling book Come As You Are, so much of the female orgasm is in the mind. Nagoski theorises that female sexual pleasure has dual controls — an accelerator to turn you on and a brake to turn you off — and that balance is needed to achieve orgasm. But my brake was hyper-sensitive thanks to all that fear and panic and shame, making it near impossible for me to actually have one. (Of course, that's an easy observation to make three years on the other side.) Sex toys felt like a good starting point (god forbid I actually touch myself!), and my limited student budget meant I wanted a vibrator that gave a good bang for my buck, so to speak. I'd spend hours trawling through positive customer reviews for phrases like "can't come" or "never usually orgasm," hoping the same would happen for me if I purchased a clitoral stimulator or CBD lube. When it didn't, I felt more frustrated than ever. What I was searching for was a sense of recognition — an "oh, I'm not alone in this" feeling that my friends, while empathetic, understandably couldn't provide. (Yet whenever I now mention to friends that I didn't have an orgasm until I was 25, similar stories are divulged.) So I looked further afield, scouring message board threads and online articles for narratives from people who'd not been able to come either. The snatched moments of understanding made me feel less alone, albeit not necessarily always better. The next approach was more unconventional. Two friends bought me a subscription to OMGYes, the adult sex education website dedicated to facilitating female pleasure. Initially, I was embarrassed that it had come to this, but I gave it a go. A membership provided access to a library of practical (and extremely NSFW) tutorials on different masturbation techniques. I tried to follow along, but lacked perseverance and was quick to abandon the mission when things didn't happen immediately. At every stage, my attempts to orgasm were hindered by these deeply rooted feelings of shame and inadequacy, and a fear of feeling like even more of a failure should I try and not succeed. I knew I was missing out on an integral part of the human experience, but once the terrifying words "you're going to be on your deathbed never having had an orgasm" enter the mind, they're hard to shake. In order to halt this nihilistic spiral, I stopped trying altogether. It wasn't all bad. The sex, with both long-term and casual partners, was often even pleasurable. Sometimes I faked orgasms, sometimes I didn't bother — the former usually when I didn't want to explain myself and give them an excuse not to try. So the problem bubbled away beneath the surface, rectifying it as simply not a priority. As with much of life, the arrival of COVID-19 changed things. I remember turning 25 and looking down the barrel of a new year and a third lockdown in the UK. I'm officially in my mid-twenties, I thought. If not now, when? Those interconnected feelings of embarrassment and failure were clearly holding me back. If I was going to figure out how to orgasm, that would only be achieved by removing expectation; expectation that, I realised, was coming directly from the internet aids I'd sought out for help. I needed to strip away the technological trappings and do the one very simple thing I'd been so scared to do: touch myself, and do it consistently. I set myself a challenge. Every day, I would put my phone on the other side of the room and masturbate without sex toys. The experience felt utterly alien at first; at some point, it crossed my mind that sexual partners had touched my genitals far more than I ever had. Once I acclimatised to the sensation of taking my time and not trying to speed up the process with a buzzing pink lump of plastic, it felt good. Things started happening, although not the earth-shattering fireworks that society had led me to expect. I didn't think these faint flutters were orgasms, and briefly returned to the message boards to see if others had experienced anything similar. Nobody described my exact feelings, but I kept at it. It was a conversation with a close friend, a doctor, that made the most marked difference. I told her about my current state, where I wasn't sure whether I was experiencing an orgasm or not. "You know if you want that to count, it counts," she told me. For the first time, someone was saying that I was on the right path, and not crashing into a wall. Without being dramatic (although said friend still laughs about how I credit her with my first orgasm), those words triggered a switch in my brain. As soon as I stopped feeling like I was foolish for even attempting to fight what I'd always perceived to be a losing battle, orgasms — proper ones, I was sure — came. I didn't cry or rush to text the friends greatly invested in my journey. Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled, but it felt like a wholly personal achievement, and one I wanted to sit in for a while. SEE ALSO: What is a ruined orgasm? Mostly, the feeling was one of relief, the lifting of a huge weight from my chest and the dissipation of so much secret shame. I remember thinking that if I never had an orgasm again, I would be happy. Given how easy I was now finding it once that bridge was crossed, though, I was pretty sure that wasn't going to be the case. It would be a while until I was able to orgasm with other people, but even before I did, my partnered sex life improved dramatically. I didn't feel like I was lacking anymore. I remember thinking that if I never had an orgasm again, I would be happy. If there's one thing I now know, it's that you can't intellectualise, let alone buy, an orgasm. Sure, products and internet resources may help, and in those most isolating moments, it was undoubtedly useful to see my experience reflected back in others. But over time, I found the accumulation of all this knowledge only added to my feelings of failure. I had to remove it all from my mind and do the thing I was most scared to — confront my own body — to make it happen. Given all that, I'm aware of the irony of writing my own "how I finally had an orgasm" narrative. But I know a story like mine, as long as it wasn't dwelled on too long or used as a point of comparison, would have helped my younger self. It's why I keep far less personal aspects of my life out of my work, yet have always known I wanted to write about this experience someday. There are so few narratives about a total inability to orgasm out there. If you're reading this now and see something of yourself in my story, I hope it can provide some. It can happen for you — I truly believe that — whether you're 25 or 72. You'll get there.
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
The Real Life Tech Execs That Inspired Jesse Armstrong's Mountainhead
Jesse Armstrong loves to pull fictional stories out of reality. His universally acclaimed TV show Succession, for instance, was inspired by real-life media dynasties like the Murdochs and the Hearsts. Similarly, his newest film Mountainhead centers upon characters that share key traits with the tech world's most powerful leaders: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, and others. Mountainhead, which releases on HBO on May 31 at 8 p.m. ET, portrays four top tech executives who retreat to a Utah hideaway as the AI deepfake tools newly released by one of their companies wreak havoc across the world. As the believable deepfakes inflame hatred on social media and real-world violence, the comfortably-appointed quartet mulls a global governmental takeover, intergalactic conquest and immortality, before interpersonal conflict derails their plans. Armstrong tells TIME in a Zoom interview that he first became interested in writing a story about tech titans after reading books like Michael Lewis' Going Infinite (about Sam Bankman-Fried) and Ashlee Vance's Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, as well as journalistic profiles of Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, and others. He then built the story around the interplay between four character archetypes—the father, the dynamo, the usurper, and the hanger-on—and conducted extensive research so that his fictional executives reflected real ones. His characters, he says, aren't one-to-one matches, but 'Frankenstein monsters with limbs sewn together.' These characters are deeply flawed and destructive, to say the least. Armstrong says he did not intend for the film to be a wholly negative depiction of tech leaders and AI development. 'I do try to take myself out of it, but obviously my sense of what this tech does and could do infuses the piece. Maybe I do have some anxieties,' he says. Armstrong contends that the film is more so channeling fears that AI leaders themselves have warned about. 'If somebody who knows the technology better than anyone in the world thinks there's a 1/5th chance that it's going to wipe out humanity—and they're some of the optimists—I think that's legitimately quite unnerving,' he says. Here's how each of the characters in Mountainhead resembles real-world tech leaders. This article contains spoilers. Venis (Cory Michael Smith) is the dynamo. Venis is Armstrong's 'dynamo': the richest man in the world, who has gained his wealth from his social media platform Traam and its 4 billion users. Venis is ambitious, juvenile, and self-centered, even questioning whether other people are as real as him and his friends. Venis' first obvious comp is Elon Musk, the richest man in the real world. Like Musk, Venis is obsessed with going to outer space and with using his enormous war chest to build hyperscale data centers to create powerful anti-woke AI systems. Venis also has a strange relationship with his child, essentially using it as a prop to help him through his own emotional turmoil. Throughout the movie, others caution Venis to shut down his deepfake AI tools which have led to military conflict and the desecration of holy sites across the world. Venis rebuffs them and says that people just need to adapt to technological changes and focus on the cool art being made. This argument is similar to those made by Sam Altman, who has argued that OpenAI needs to unveil ChatGPT and other cutting-edge tools as fast as possible in order to show the public the power of the technology. Like Mark Zuckerberg, Venis presides over a massively popular social media platform that some have accused of ignoring harms in favor of growth. Just as Amnesty International accused Meta of having 'substantially contributed' to human rights violations perpetrated against Myanmar's Rohingya ethnic group, Venis complains of the UN being 'up his ass for starting a race war.' Randall (Steve Carell) is the father. The group's eldest member is Randall, an investor and technologist who resembles Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel in his lofty philosophizing and quest for immortality. Like Andreessen, Randall is a staunch accelerationist who believes that U.S. companies need to develop AI as fast as possible in order to both prevent the Chinese from controlling the technology, and to ostensibly ignite a new American utopia in which productivity, happiness, and health flourish. Randall's power comes from the fact that he was Venis' first investor, just as Thiel was an early investor in Facebook. While Andreessen pens manifestos about technological advancement, Randall paints his mission in grandiose, historical terms, using anti-democratic, sci-fi-inflected language that resembles that of the philosopher Curtis Yarvin, who has been funded and promoted by Thiel over his career. Randall's justification of murder through utilitarian and Kantian lenses calls to mind Sam Bankman-Fried's extensive philosophizing, which included a declaration that he would roll the dice on killing everyone on earth if there was a 51% chance he would create a second earth. Bankman-Fried's approach—in embracing risk and harm in order to reap massive rewards—led him to be convicted of massive financial fraud. Randall is also obsessed with longevity just like Thiel, who has railed for years against the 'inevitability of death' and yearns for 'super-duper medical treatments' that would render him immortal. Jeff (Ramy Youssef) is the usurper. Jeff is a technologist who often serves as the movie's conscience, slinging criticisms about the other characters. But he's also deeply embedded within their world, and he needs their resources, particularly Venis' access to computing power, to thrive. In the end, Jeff sells out his values for his own survival and well-being. AI skeptics have lobbed similar criticisms at the leaders of the main AI labs, including Altman—who started OpenAI as a nonprofit before attempting to restructure the company—as well as Demis Hassabis and Dario Amodei. Hassabis is the CEO of Google Deepmind and a winner of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; a rare scientist surrounded by businessmen and technologists. In order to try to achieve his AI dreams of curing disease and halting global warning, Hassabis enlisted with Google, inking a contract in 2014 in which he prohibited Google from using his technology for military applications. But that clause has since disappeared, and the AI systems developed under Hassabis are being sold, via Google, to militaries like Israel's. Another parallel can be drawn between Jeff and Amodei, an AI researcher who defected from OpenAI after becoming worried that the company was cutting back its safety measures, and then formed his own company, Anthropic. Amodei has urged governments to create AI guardrails and has warned about the potentially catastrophic effects of the AI industry's race dynamics. But some have criticized Anthropic for operating similarly to OpenAI, prioritizing scale in a way that exacerbates competitive pressures. Souper (Jason Schwartzman) is the hanger-on. Every quartet needs its Turtle or its Ringo; a clear fourth wheel to serve as a punching bag for the rest of the group's alpha males. Mountainhead 's hanger-on is Souper, thus named because he has soup kitchen money compared to the rest (hundreds of millions as opposed to billions of dollars). In order to prove his worth, he's fixated on getting funding for a meditation startup that he hopes will eventually become an 'everything app.' No tech exec would want to be compared to Souper, who has a clear inferiority complex. But plenty of tech leaders have emphasized the importance of meditation and mindfulness—including Twitter co-founder and Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who often goes on meditation retreats. Armstrong, in his interview, declined to answer specific questions about his characters' inspirations, but conceded that some of the speculations were in the right ballpark. 'For people who know the area well, it's a little bit of a fun house mirror in that you see something and are convinced that it's them,' he says. 'I think all of those people featured in my research. There's bits of Andreessen and David Sacks and some of those philosopher types. It's a good parlor game to choose your Frankenstein limbs.'
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Joe Rogan's "Worst Podcast" Guest Hits Back
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Prominent Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass has accused podcaster Joe Rogan of pushing a false narrative that denies Egyptians built the pyramids—an agenda he told Newsweek he had confronted head-on with evidence. Responding to Rogan's description of their episode on The Joe Rogan Experience as possibly his "worst podcast," Hawass said he "was not bothered" by the negative comment—as long as he didn't allow the host to push a "nonsense" narrative on ancient Egyptian civilization. Newsweek has reached out to Joe Rogan's team via email for comment. The Context The two-hour episode of Joe Rogan's podcast on ancient Egypt aired on May 14 and has also been viewed by over a million people on YouTube. Hawass—cigar in hand—cited detailed archaeological evidence supporting the view that massive monuments such as the Great Pyramids of Giza were built by ancient Egyptians thousands of years ago and rejected theories that others could have built them. Speaking to Newsweek from the United States, where he is currently on a lecture tour, Hawass, the former minister of antiquities said: "I was direct and firm. What matters to me is defending Egyptian civilization." "Egypt's Indiana Jones" Hawass, who has embraced the nickname "Egypt's Indiana Jones", is an internationally recognized leading Egyptologist, but his critics—among them Egyptians—accuse him of self-promotion and monopolizing the field. Many Egyptians criticized his tone on Rogan's show as well as the content of the podcast. Hawass began the conversation with Rogan by dismissing the claims of late radio host Art Bell that Egyptians couldn't have moved the stones to build the pyramids, recounting how he showed Bell skilled quarrying techniques. Rogan then questioned him—asking how the stones were moved 5,000 years ago. At one point, Rogan asked if papyrus was made of animal skin — rather than the papyrus reeds used by ancient Egyptians. Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass speaks to journalists during a conference to announce a series of archaeological discoveries on January 8, 2025 in Luxor, Egypt. Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass speaks to journalists during a conference to announce a series of archaeological discoveries on January 8, 2025 in Luxor, Egypt. Photo byWhile Rogan praised Egypt's monumental achievements, achknowledging he'd never visited the country, their exchange centered on Rogan asking, "How do you know?" and Hawass replying, "I found it—I wrote it." Who Built The Pyramids? A week later, Rogan mocked Hawass and weighed in again on skeptical theories over who built the pyramids. "This is this closed-minded fellow that's been in charge of gatekeeping all of the knowledge," said Rogan, who has millions of followers and has interviewed President Donald Trump among numerous top figures. "That might have been the worst podcast I've ever done, but maybe a good one too," Rogan commented. Hawass has dismissed recent Italian research using Synthetic Aperture Radar tomography, which suggested the presence of massive vertical shafts beneath the Khafre pyramid. "I'm not concerned about attacks, even from others. I've been dealing with criticism my entire life; I've been working in archaeology and on the pyramids for over 50 years," Hawass told Newsweek. What People Are Saying Dr. Zahi Hawass told Newsweek: "The man clearly has an agenda aimed at denying that Egyptians built the pyramids. At the very least, that's nonsense. I didn't let him push that narrative—I responded with all the evidence. He produced a podcast about the pyramids featuring Zahi Hawass, but he didn't even read." Joe Rogan mockingly told Aaron Rogers on The Joe Rogan Experience episode of May 21: "He's discovered everything, basically. He's the best." Egyptian comedian and satirist Bassem Youssef wrote on Facebook, translated from Arabic: "The topic of Zahi Hawass and Joe Rogan has many angles that could be discussed. But from a scientific standpoint—and regardless of what might be said about Zahi Hawass's career (most of which would likely be negative)—Zahi Hawass, whether we agree with him or not, was clearly more knowledgeable in history and related fields than Joe Rogan, who's more of a blabbermouth and conspiracy theorist."
