Yes, there is a difference between staring and looking, in so far as those terms are commonly used in american english:

From Oxford Languages via Google: Stare: look fixedly or vacantly at someone or something with one’s eyes wide open Look: direct one’s gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction So “staring” means looking fixedly or vacantly. This takes “looking” to a different place because it implies your thoughts are lingering on the thing you are staring at, which in the case of cleavage would be sexually suggestive (and therefore could make someone uncomfortable). It’s not too far off from catcalling in my opinion. It is much less sexually suggestive to stare at someone’s shoes or a cool hat, so clearly the context of staring is important as to whether it is offensive.

Also, you seem to have missed an important part of my earlier response:

It is also important to think about how choices over what one wears are driven by many factors, not just a desire to have people look at you. I think many women (especially younger women) have been made to feel that they must wear revealing clothing to fit in or be cool, so it isn’t really so simple as just an invitation for men to stare.

This is why I don’t think that it is accurate to say:

So if women want to wear clothes showing off their breasts then I am quite certain they want people to look at those breasts.

There is a difference between looking/noticing and staring in my opinion.

It is also important to think about how choices over what one wears are driven by many factors, not just a desire to have people look at you. I think many women (especially younger women) have been made to feel that they must wear revealing clothing to fit in or be cool, so it isn’t really so simple as just an invitation for men to stare.

As for why men should not stare, it is because the male gaze (everyone’s gaze really) has power and affects people’s emotions, and it is worthwhile to care about how other people feel and not do something that would make a large portion of people feel uncomfortable such as staring at someone’s cleavage. Basically, it is impolite.

In my opinion there may be a better option for you (unless you have a clinically bad case of extra sweat, which obviously is another thing). Try a deodorant that aims to control the population of bacteria on your armpits. Bacteria are what actually produce the chemicals that smell bad. Since switching to a scentless bacteria controlling deodorant, I still sweat but my stink is gone. Same for my partner. And it’s much healthier for you in my opinion.

https://superdeodorant.com/

This was for real life changing for us.

I’m confused - are you trying to argue that we should not try to stop the spread of hateful propaganda? Or just that it doesn’t matter to have it in schools? Maybe you are trying to argue that exposing children to hateful rhetoric will not have an impact on their developing brains?

What you are saying does not make sense to me.

From my perspective it is worth pointing out because it shows how Kirk’s murder was NOT a good thing, and is NOT something that should be looked back upon with glee. Rather than being the end of Charlie Kirk’s vision for Turning Point, his death invigorated it and has now potentially set up an entire generation to be propagandized.

It would have been better for the world for Kirk to have kept living and continue embarrassing himself (which he did on a daily basis) and come to a more typical end for these far right influencers - jailed/disgraced. Not to mention that noone deserves to be executed, especially without a trial.

The U.S. doesn’t really make anything

Actually the U.S. makes a lot of stuff. Amongst other things the U.S. accounts for somewhere around 40% of the global food & beverage market.

https://www.nist.gov/el/applied-economics-office/manufacturing/manufacturing-economy/total-us-manufacturing

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/food-beverages-market-size-reach-133000592.html?

For which Volkswagen was fined approximately $30 million… Compared to having grossed €59.5 billion in 2024… Nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Cost of doing business, you could say.

This does not convince me that we should redirect all effort away from environmental legislation. In my view human rights are very much intertwined with environmental stewardship.

deleted by creator

Even if you feel that the white house should stop being used as an active part of the USA government, it doesn’t make sense to tear it down.

Take Auschwitz for example - a horrible place, but worth preserving so that future generations can see history in person and learn from the past. At the very least, the whitehouse is worth preserving for its historical value, if nothing else.

I think there is a big difference between “tough love” and unkindness. I don’t think being unkind is ever the best way to encourage someone to improve. Instead be “blunt” in communication/upfront with constructive criticism - which I see as a kindness.