# Why are you staring?



## Ptak

Is the question _'Why are you staring?'_ rude/not quite polite or not?

I always thought it was not polite at all... Could it be used, for example, in a situation when I made a declaration of love to someone and then I say (beggarly, maybe):
- Why are you staring?.. Say something!

Or only the verb 'look', (for example, 'Why are you just looking at me?') fits here?

Thank you!


----------



## WestSideGal

Ptak said:


> Is the question _'Why are you staring?'_ rude/not quite polite or not?
> 
> I always thought it was not polite at all... Could it be used, for example, in a situation when I made a declaration of love to someone and then I say (beggarly, maybe):
> - Why are you staring?.. Say something!
> 
> Or only the verb 'look', (for example, 'Why are you just looking at me?') fits here?
> 
> Thank you!


 
A question like that is more confrontative than anything else. And, yes, I would place this in the "rude" category!

Depending on the tone of voice used and the degree of intimacy you have with the other person, it might be perceived as being flirtacious when you ask, "Why are you staring/looking at me?"  On the other hand, it could be the grounds for a fight when you say in a different tone of voice "Why are you looking at me?!"


----------



## Ptak

So "Why are you staring" (without *at me*) is incorrect?


----------



## WestSideGal

No, it is correct.  The rudeness depends on how it is said and to whom.


----------



## Ptak

I hope I can ask my question in this thread...

"Why are you staring" (without *at me*) is correct.
Is correct "Why are you looking" (without *at me*) then?


----------



## Waylink

You can say "Why are you staring?" or "Why are you staring at me?".

Both are grammatically correct.  In the first example, it might be unnecessary to say "at me" because it is obvious/implicit.  Or it might be that the person is staring at something/someone else. 

A:  Why are you staring?
B:  I'm not staring.
A: Yes, you are! You're staring at that pretty girl / handsome fellow over there!

In my opinion, it is usually necessary or desirable to say what/who someone is "looking" at because typically everyone is looking all the time (except when asleep/unconscious).

So I think it would NOT generally be good English to say "Why are you looking?" when you mean "Why are you looking at me?".

In fact, if someone simply asked me "Why are you looking?" I would find it very odd indeed - unless it was a different meaning such as: "You know where your wallet is so why are you looking?"  (Here, "looking" means searching or looking for something.)

So, in general these are correct:

-- Why are you staring?  
-- Why are you staring at me?
-- Why are you looking at me?

But this is not generally correct:
-- Why are you looking?
This is not grammatically wrong - it's just not very useful and sounds wrong in most cases.  

Another way of thinking about it is that "staring" is much more limited, precise and specific than "looking".  Looking usually needs something with it to make the meaning clear.

Finally, this might seem slightly off-topic but I think it is relevant to the idea that "looking" needs something with it.  "look" is used in many different collocations and set phrases and that suggests it often needs something with it to make the meaning clear:

-- Are you looking at me?
-- She's good looking (is attractive).
-- He looks out for me (takes care of my safety or welfare).
-- She looks down on him (regard him as inferior).
-- Things are looking up (getter better).

I hope this helps a bit.


----------



## Ptak

> I hope this helps a bit.


This helps a lot 
Thanks!


----------



## AngelEyes

Ptak said:


> Could it be used, for example, in a situation when I made a declaration of love to someone and then I say (beggarly, maybe):
> - Why are you staring?.. Say something!


 
Listen, if I told a guy I loved him and he just sat there and looked at me, depending on the rest of his body language (Is he in total, happy shock? Is he making frowning eyebrow gestures at me? Is he staring, but he has a big, old grin on his face?)

I would definitely say, "Why are you staring? Say something!"

Depending on which reaction he was giving me at this point would decide for me if I say this with a smile. 

I would say it no matter what.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## branchsnapper

I don't think you would, Angel Eyes. We only fail to say what is being stared at if we wish to imply that the person we are talking to is rudely staring, and we wish to criticize them.


----------



## AngelEyes

I guess I don't think staring is always 100% rude.

It would depend on the circumstance.

I'd stare, speechless, if my mother told me she won ten million dollars.

I'd stare, stunned, if some woman stood in the middle of the mall and took all her clothes off and started to sing the "Star-Spangled Banner."

I'd stare in awe and with sudden fear if someone ran out into the middle of traffic to save a small kitten.

Astonishment, surprise, unexpected good news, hearing of someone's untimely death...all of these would be reasons for me to stop and stare at the person who told me about them. I wouldn't be acting rude if I did.

In Ptak's specific example about telling someone she loves them, if that other person isn't prepared for such news, the body automatically ceases to move and the eyes remain fixed while the brain scrambles.

That's not necessarily a rude, negative reaction, in my view. And I just might say in a teasing way - that's why I wondered if the other person seems pleased - "Hey silly, what are you staring at?"

*AngelEyes*


----------



## branchsnapper

I agree, but your mother, to take one of your examples, would not say "why are you staring" or even "don't just sit there staring". Failing to give an object for staring implies it is rude staring.

"Hey silly, why are you staring?" doesn't sound as good.


----------



## AngelEyes

Gosh, I'm sorry, but I can conceive that she might. 

I'd be standing there with my eyes bulging and my mouth hanging open and staring at _her_ mouth and wondering if I heard her right.

She could say, "Are you going to just stand there and stare at me forever? Say something!"

I guess the point I'm trying to make is it's not *always *rude to stare or to ask someone why they are staring.

It all depends. In Ptaks, example, it's not necessarily rude, in my opinion.

Haven't you ever stared at anyone and not in a rude way? Or hasn't one of your friends stared at you for whatever silly reason, and you say, "Hey fool...what are you looking at?" Just in joking. 

*AngelEyes*


----------



## branchsnapper

You are missing my point. You keep adding in an object for the verb "staring" when you give examples.

I suggest "staring" as an intransitive verb means "to look with ill intent".


----------



## AngelEyes

branchsnapper said:


> I suggest "staring" as an intransitive verb means "to look with ill intent".


 
I don't mean it if it sounds like I'm just arguing.

To address this thought of yours specifically, staring - all on its own - is neither positive or negative. Neither rude, intrusive, conjoling, or combative.

Circumstances will determine that.

I will stop bantering back and forth with you because we obviously just don't agree.

Maybe others have additional comments that might add something new and helpful here. 

*AngelEyes*


----------



## branchsnapper

I should say, by the way, that you could say "I just sat there and stared", but in that case you would be leaving out the object rather than not providing one. So it is a complex thing, and perhaps not worth mentioning.
However, I'd also like to hear if others agree that "you are staring" must be a negative comment.


----------



## Waylink

I think it should be noted that "to stare" is not simply "to look intently and continuously".  

Using "stare" does imply something about the attitude or interpretation of the speaker.

For example:

A: John saw Pete staring at him across the restaurant.   (This implies not just looking - there is either something unwelcome/surprising or inappropriate about it.)

B: The undercover police officer watched the suspect intently.  She never took her eyes off him because she wanted to see the moment that the drugs were handed over.  ("Staring" would not be the right word here.)


----------



## panjandrum

Staring was, in the past, neutral.
Over time, it has come to have the negative sense that is suggested here -  says the OED - 
_In modern use the verb ordinarily implies rudeness, or is otherwise disparaging; hence many of the older examples would now be differently expressed._


----------



## liliput

I think common expressions in these contexts are:

"What are you staring at? (Have I got a TV on my head?)" even though we know what the person is staring at and we really want to know why.

"Don't just sit there staring - say something".

"Why are you just staring at me?"

I think that the inclusion of "just" is important in these last two as it implies that you should be doing something else. 

They do say that it's rude to stare, in which case it can hardly be considered rude to ask why someone is staring.


----------



## AngelEyes

Ptak said:


> ... Could it be used, for example, in a situation when I made a declaration of love to someone and then I say (beggarly, maybe):
> - Why are you staring?.. Say something!


 
I almost didn't post this because I don't want to appear rude because I'm sitting here staring at my screen, trying to figure out what my problem is. Okay, that was a cheap joke.   
Although my computer didn't break down in a huff because I've been staring at it.

Anyway, I am seriously interested here.

If you say something amazing to a person and they stare back at you in comparable amazement, that should be considered rude?

All staring is rude? 

When does an acceptable, intense gaze become a rude stare? When the stare is unprovoked? For instance, when you see someone with a facial deformity and you blatantly stop and stare at them? *Yes*, that's *rude*.

But if someone gives you a surprise compliment and your first instinct is to turn around and look to see what gorgeous person is standing behind you, but when you see it's you they're speaking to, you stand there staring speechless at this obviously poor person with bad eyesight...will they consider you rude if you stare while you think of something to say back to them? I hardly think so. 

I went to these three links:

stare

stare

stare

The third one does highlight the rude, unacceptable act of staring, but the other meanings certainly don't convince me that all staring is rude. 

Intent plays a big part here, I think.

And yes, another consideration I didn't think of is cultural. Many cultures consider *all* staring rude and unacceptable.

But I keep going back to Ptak's question and the specific situation she gave us to work with. 

She tells someone she loves them.

They stare back at her.

That's not necessarily rude if it's happy shock that keeps them immobile. 

Under certain circumstances, it's not only not rude, it's understandable.

And if Ptak wants to ask "Why are you staring?" That's not rude, either. Or at least, in certain circumstances, it wouldn't be rude at all.

If they both love each other but have been too shy to bring it up, the elation that's it's finally out in the open and they can both express their affection now would produce an initial stare that's not rude at all.

It could be, but who knows? It all depends on the people and their relationship and how the question affects it.

No, I have to disagree and say rude is dependent on the specific circumstances. Staring is neutral when it's just sitting there without those specifics.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## panjandrum

I have to suggest that perhaps the shift in meaning, that the word stare now carries a negative connotation, may well not have reached AE.  The links that AngelEyes mentions support that view.

And to emphasise, it is the use and meaning of the word _stare _we should discuss, not the social and cultural interpretation of intent and purposeful looking (called by whatever name).  So the lucky chap who is gazing longingly into AngelEyes' eyes cannot be staring, by the current definition.

The shift in meaning of stare, is, perhaps, the cumulative effect of generations of small children being told "Don't stare. It's rude." or "It's rude to stare."


----------



## AngelEyes

panjandrum said:


> So the lucky chap who is gazing longingly into AngelEyes' eyes cannot be staring, by the current definition.


 
Well no, it's me staring back at the blind chap and I'm playing the same role as whoever Ptak is speaking to in her example. I'm staring in shock at his compliment or his "whatever" that stuns me.

I wouldn't consider my amazed stare to be rude and if that chap with the impeccable taste whould ask me (taking on Ptak's role) "Why are you staring?" I wouldn't consider him rude, either.

But you do make a point, Panj, that I wanted to address. I don't know how to discuss whether the meaning of the word stare is always rude without discussing the social situations in which it can or can't be. 

I have stated before here, I think the word itself is neutral. It's the situation in which it's used that decides whether or not it's rude.

In the U.S., it's very common to teach your children not to stare because it's rude. But kids stare unprovoked all the time. As they grow up, though, those little differences are learned where we understand when it's rude and when it's just logical reaction.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## panjandrum

AngelEyes said:


> [...]
> 
> I have stated before here, I think the word itself is neutral. It's the situation in which it's used that decides whether or not it's rude.
> 
> [...]


I think I understand your point, but it appears to be contrary to the perception of others here and to at least some of the dictionary definitions (in particular the OED ).
But the point others are trying to make is that the word _stare _is no longer neutral.  Over some considerable time, it has come to have an intrinsically negative sense.  If you say someone was staring, it sounds critical.

The behaviour that you are talking about is neutral and the context will determine whether or not it is perceived negatively.
If it is perceived negatively, that behaviour could, indeed, be described as staring.
If it is not, then it is not staring.


----------



## AngelEyes

panjandrum said:


> The behaviour that you are talking about is neutral and the context will determine whether or not it is perceived negatively.
> If it is perceived negatively, that behaviour could, indeed, be described as staring.
> If it is not, then it is not staring.


 
I am so frustrated. 

If it's not staring when perceived in a non-negative fashion, what is it then?

Maybe gaping.
Or gazing.
Or gawking.

The first and the third ones sound worse than _stare_. And your body's doing the same movement with the eyes so it's not the word that describes it that's negative but the context.

All right, I'm not going to badger this to death. I'm not conceding; I'm just not going to bore everybody by continuing. 

Thanks, Panj.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Ynez

AngelEyes, I think we need another American in this thread to see if it's a UK/Am difference or if it is your different point of view.

I had a "neutral" idea of the verb "stare", but I have understood, reading the thread, that in UK it has now a negative connotation.


----------



## AngelEyes

Okay, I lied. I have somethine to add. 

Please realize it's only because I'm fascinated more than annoyed that I seem to be considered wrong.

Is this phrase used in BE?

_...staring with rapt attention..._

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/rapt.html

In AE, the use of _stare_ in this context is not considered negative.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Ptak

AngelEyes said:


> Listen, if I told a guy I loved him and he just sat there and looked at me, depending on the rest of his body language (Is he in total, happy shock? Is he making frowning eyebrow gestures at me? Is he staring, but he has a big, old grin on his face?)
> 
> I would definitely say, "Why are you staring? Say something!"
> 
> Depending on which reaction he was giving me at this point would decide for me if I say this with a smile.
> 
> I would say it no matter what.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


*AngelEyes*, but would you say it... _beggarly_?
I mean, if the situation is serious, if he's not stunned, if he just... doesn't answer you. Would you say to him kinda _beggarly_ D) "Why are staring?" (~Why are you just looking at me? Why don't you say something?)

Well, I mean, _could the phrase be said beggarly_, so that I could more or less understand its rudeness. Because I think you _can_ say "Why are you *lookung* at me?" beggarly.


----------



## Ptak

Ptak said:


> ~Why are you just looking at me? Why don't you say something?


By the way, how about "_Why are you *just* looking?_" (without "*at me*")? Is it not fine, either?


----------



## AngelEyes

Ptak said:


> *AngelEyes*, but would you say it... _beggarly_?
> I mean, if the situation is serious, if he's not stunned, if he just... doesn't answer you. Would you say to him kinda _beggarly_ D) "Why are staring?" (~Why are you just looking at me? Why don't you say something?)
> 
> Well, I mean, _could the phrase be said beggarly_, so that I could more or less understand its rudeness. Because I think you _can_ say "Why are you *lookung* at me?" beggarly.


 
Ptak,

I no longer know for sure if I'm the best source for your answer, but I'll try to give you a sincere answer from my perspective since you asked me personally. 

First of all, though, I think the word you're looking for instead of _beggerly_ is *imploringly. *It means to look at someone with a great inner need that shows in your eyes that you very much want to receive an honest reaction or answer to whatever it is you've just said or done. It carries with it a level of insecurity and vulnerability.

As I've stated before, I don't think it's rude to ask someone why they're staring at you, just as I don't think it's necessarily rude to stare sometimes.

You've read what the British opinion is. This is what I think as an American.

And it's hard for me to say if that other person's stare was rude or not. I don't know what motivated him to do it. Was he shocked but pleased? Was he shocked but annoyed? Did he stare and then say something really mean and cruel? 

There are so many variables at work here.

Also, to answer your other question. If you asked him, "What are you looking at?" or "Why are you looking at me like that?" I don't consider either of these rude. Just an honest attempt at open communication.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## johndot

I like the Encarta Dictionary: English (U.K.) entries.
* *
*stare (intransitive verb)*
* *
*1. look fixedly*
to look directly at somebody or something for a long time without moving the eyes away, usually as a result of curiosity or surprise, or to express rudeness or defiance
'What is this life if, full of care,/ We have no time to stand and stare?' W. H. Davies Leisure
*2. be wide open with shock*
* *to look wide open with shock, fear, or amazement
 (refers to eyes)
*3. be obvious*
to be obvious or blatant
• The answer was staring at you all the time you just couldn't see it [sic].


----------



## Dimcl

Although I live on the same side of the Atlantic as AngelEyes, I must agree with most of our BE brethren - I find the act of staring (for any reason) to be rude.  In Ptak's original example, I would feel humiliated and at a loss if all's he did was stare after my grand pronouncement.  In this context, I might be thinking "Okay, now I've really put him on the spot and he's trying desperately to formulate a response that won't have me jumping off a bridge."  And, I'm afraid that my response of "Why are you staring?" wouldn't be "neutral" - I don't see how it can be.  It's an "in your face" question in any context.

And, yes, I'm one of those people who was taught as a child that it was seriously impolite to stare so maybe this has coloured my perception of the word.  I can't imagine staring at anyone for any reason without feeling like I'm, at the least, being forward, if not downright rude.


----------



## AngelEyes

A couple of things. We still don't know from Ptak the rest of the story. There are a lot of gaps to fill in that would make it understandable.

Also, if you were to read in an article that students were staring with rapt attention at their teacher as she taught them an interesting lesson, would you label those students rude?

I'm not saying staring isn't rude. I'm saying it's not always rude.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Nunty

AngelEyes said:


> A couple of things. We still don't know from Ptak the rest of the story. There are a lot of gaps to fill in that would make it understandable.
> 
> Also, if you were to read in an article that students were staring with rapt attention at their teacher as she taught them an interesting lesson, would you label those students rude?
> 
> I'm not saying staring isn't rude. I'm saying it's not always rude.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


Great example, AngelEyes. I hadn't thought of that one.


----------



## panjandrum

AngelEyes said:


> A couple of things. We still don't know from Ptak the rest of the story. There are a lot of gaps to fill in that would make it understandable.
> 
> Also, if you were to read in an article that students were staring with rapt attention at their teacher as she taught them an interesting lesson, would you label those students rude?
> 
> I'm not saying staring isn't rude. I'm saying it's not always rude.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


I'm sorry to be repetitive, and we are in danger of exaggerating a subtle negative sense into a monumental issue.

I would not ever say that someone was staring with rapt attention. That is a contradiction.
To exaggerate, it is rather like saying you can insult with respect.


----------



## AngelEyes

panjandrum said:


> I would not ever say that someone was staring with rapt attention. That is a contradiction.


 
Well, I'm sorry, but it's a set phrase in AE. I gave a link to it in post #25. In my experience, it's not an archaic expression and it wouldn't seem odd or wrong to use it.

It's also expressed as "_staring in rapt attention_" sometimes, too.

And don't worry about this growing any more tedious. I think I've expressed my opinion with enough examples and links to clarify how I've arrived at it that if we don't agree by now, we never will.

But I do wonder, Panj, when you're totally focused and engrossed in something or someone you find riveting, what your eyes are doing when you are.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## cuchuflete

Another AE speaker, reporting for duty:   In Ptak's context, I think the receiver of the news is not staring, so much as being speechless, looking at Ptak in astonishment.  Hence "Why are you staring [at me]?" is an inappropriate response.  How's that for ducking the issue?

OK, staring at another person is normally considered rude, but there are exceptions.  If the person is a model or a performer, they may want to be stared at.  That is not relevant in this context.  Here we are discussing a scene in which one person makes a heartfelt declaration to another person, and the response is silence and a fixed gaze.

Presumably the receiver of the news is dumbstruck.  The look or stare or gaze is the physical manifestation of shock.  "Why are you staring?" could be taken as rude, but would surely be an insensitive and not especially useful thing to say.  Even if the rudeness is abated by a broad smile and honeyed tone, it seems an inept and potentially offensive response.


----------



## branchsnapper

I think "staring with rapt attention at the teacher" sounds OK.

Once again though, it has an object. When there is no object, it means with ill-intent. To make this very clear - no words after staring = rude. (unless the object has been mentioned in the previous sentence)


----------



## Wobby

I'm actually slightly inclined to agree with *AngelEyes*. Well, in terms of the context where a person compliments another and the other stares, I guess if I were complimenting, I might be shocked that the other stared (e.g. thinking for example whether the other did not want to be complimented, was the compliment taken as an insult, etc...), but not necessarily think it rude. It might invoke the response of "Hey, why are you just staring like that?", with a nervous laugh in case the other really has taken the compliment as an insult. But again, no bad intentions, and I wouldn't really call that rude either. I don't think I would ask them why they were staring if they had a big grin on their face though, as the reason would be obvious. 

On the idea of 'staring' being rude, I would think of staring as 'fixating unnaturally'. Of course, it would often sound critical to refer to someone as staring. But let's say the tallest person in the world was sitting in a room. If you said they were unnaturally tall, it would sound like a criticism. But it would be a fact - they are unnaturally tall, so surely it would just be a neutral statement - for how else could you say it? In much the same way, if for every instance of 'stare', you replaced it with 'fixate unnaturally', you would find it often sounding rude, but only because of what it involves. There isn't really a reason why asking someone why they are staring is rude if they are indeed staring. It would be rude if used in a hostile manner like, "What do you think _you're_ looking at?!" would be rude. But that doesn't mean in all cases where one asks what another is looking at is rude. The same would apply for staring.

There can be a negative connotation to staring, just like there can be a negative connotation to criticising. But that doesn't necessarily mean criticising is always bad... or rude. Possibly the only reason it is often deemed rude is because there is no justification for staring at anything in the first place. But if there is justification, and staring is intentionally elicited, why should it be deemed rude? There are certain contexts where staring is not really rude because it is justified as well as desired - one could for instance stop and stare in amazement as you were on your way to the local supermarket as you saw a group of circus performers parading down your street. Or, you may be staring blankly into space, deep in thought. I wouldn't really think either as being rude. And plenty of other examples have been provided that I wouldn't consider rude either.


----------



## liliput

"To stare" on its own is neutral. It can hardly be considered rude to stare at a rock or empty space. However, when applied to an individual person I think it's always rude. If you look fixedly at someone for any length of time it will generally make them feel uncomfortable, whatever the circumstances. For that reason it's considered rude and it elicits the question "What are you staring at?" or "Why are you staring?".

People performing some kind of spectacle wish to elicit some kind of attention may be stared at without seeming rude but I think that really we're staring at what they are doing rather than at the person - watching circus performers one does not generally look fixedly at the face of a single performer.

Children can pay attention in class without staring at the teacher. I would think they simply look at or watch. In this case the focus should be more on what they are doing with their ears rather than with their eyes. The ubiquitous google search throws up many more entries for "listening with rapt attention" than "staring with rapt attention". More significantly, a great number of the examples of "staring with rapt attention" relate to things other than people; e.g. worm, screen, something, pig's head, coffee mug. On the other hand, the vast majority of entries for "listening with rapt attention" relate to people speaking. I think the fact that their gaze is focused on the speaker is already implied in the phrase.

Conclusion: It's not rude to stare but it is rude to stare at a person. Therefore to respond to somebody staring at you with a direct question like "Why are you staring?" is perfectly acceptable and not rude at all.


----------



## cuchuflete

liliput said:


> Conclusion: It's not rude to stare but it is rude to stare at a person. Therefore to respond to somebody staring at you with a direct question like "Why are you staring?" is perfectly acceptable and not rude at all.



The argument went well until the end, when there was an attempt to superimpose logic on language.  I have to go back to some of the earliest posts in this thread, which said that it all depends on context, tone, intent.   

If we accept that "...it is rude to stare at a person", it does not even follow logically that
telling the one doing the staring that they are staring is not rude.  What if Oscar asks
Belinda why she is staring at him?  The implication is that he is accusing her of rude behavior.  This may be both accurate and polite or accurate and rude.  It still depends on a lot of contextual factors.


----------



## vaneaudodo

cuchuflete said:


> What if Oscar asks
> Belinda why she is staring at him?  The implication is that he is accusing her of rude behavior.  This may be both accurate and polite or accurate and rude.  It still depends on a lot of contextual factors.



I think, in this context, Ptak's question was an emotionally charged one, which required a perhaps delicate or perhaps nuanced answer. It deserved AN answer, at least, and if it was met with a blank stare, I feel she is not rude to have said "Why are you staring?" in response. They do say all's fair in love and war


----------



## Ynez

liliput said:


> However, when applied to an individual person I think it's always rude. If you look fixedly at someone for any length of time it will generally make them feel uncomfortable, whatever the circumstances.



Liliput, that's not really so, but it seems to me (reading this conversation) that the verb "stare" is no longer used or adequate for pleasant long looks, especially in UK. You will use other expressions for that. Could you think of some, please?


----------



## liliput

Ynez said:


> Liliput, that's not really so, but it seems to me (reading this conversation) that the verb "stare" is no longer used or adequate for pleasant long looks, especially in UK. You will use other expressions for that. Could you think of some, please?


 
This may be a cultural thing too. I know that in Spain people are much more comfortable about staring than us Brits.

I would think "gaze" is more appropriate for a long, pleasant looks.


----------



## Ynez

liliput said:


> This may be a cultural thing too. I know that in Spain people are much more comfortable about staring than us Brits.
> 
> I would think "gaze" is more appropriate for a long, pleasant looks.



Thank you. 

Maybe when you are back in UK you change your mind and don't think of the verb "stare" as negative, liliput.


----------



## Dimcl

AngelEyes said:


> Also, if you were to read in an article that students were staring with rapt attention at their teacher as she taught them an interesting lesson, would you label those students rude?
> 
> I'm not saying staring isn't rude. I'm saying it's not always rude.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
I find the phrase "staring with rapt attention" to be very odd.  "Staring" to me, means not moving your eyes.  If a student is very interested in what the teacher is saying, they will be "looking" at her.  They will be watching as she fiddles with the slide projector, they will be glancing down at their book, they will be watching the words unveil themselves as she writes on the blackboard.  When I listen to a lecturer, I "look" at them, I do not "stare" at them.


----------



## AngelEyes

Paint me the most rude and insensitive person on this Forum.

Wherever I go, I study, I analyze, I look, I stare and I observe:
people and children; their walks and and their speaking voices. If they have pets I stare at them. I stare and categorize their mannerisms and their interactions with each other.

I make up stories about why they appear the way they are. 

I don't gaze at them. I could only do that if I were in their intimate airspace. Besides, gazing is not as intense as staring, though you do both with your eyes. And looking is not as enthusiastic as staring. 

Staring is more all-inclusive and it's doesn't mean you're rude. It could just mean you're totally interested or enthralled.

If, by chance, I make eye contact, that's when I smile briefly and look away. It would be rude then, in my opinion, to take from them personally what they might not want to give. But if they don't see me or don't notice me, I'm dissecting them as surely as if they're a bug under a microscope.
That's what I do in my interaction with strangers. 

One-on-one in a conversation, I can see myself staring and I would be giving that other person the biggest compliment in the world. How could they consider me rude if I find them so fascinating, I can't take my eyes off them? Gazing, one-on-one, to me is dreamy observing.

Maybe this difference of being so sensitive to the word *staring* is cutural or generational. I don't know. I do know that Americans are insatiably curious and most stare a lot. 

But it's the degree and the sensitivity of not hurting people that also plays a part in this word.

That's why I've said from the very beginning *staring*/*stare* is a neutral word in itself. Context and circumstances decide whether it's positive or negative. 

Maybe our problem here is that what I call staring, you might call looking. What you call gazing, I call merely noticing.

In that case, this word is a chameleon - like an alien force that's impossible to pin down long enough to categorize.

And who knows if Ptak's situation was rude or not? We've never heard a full enough story to make an accurate judgment.


*AngelEyes*


----------

