Stockings vs leggings

Recently, I heard a rumour that someone up there wasn't too happy that I was wearing leggings on casual Friday. When I heard that rumour, I was taken aback. I was cognizant of the dress code that disallows leggings, but tolerates stockings (including black ones). I consciously avoided my black/denim leggings, and settled for what I identified as "stockings" instead. Granted, one could also argue that they were not really stockings as they were more opaque than the traditional sheer pantyhose.

Then I started thinking...what really is the difference between stockings and leggings anyway, or tights for that matter? These terms are used so loosely and interchangeably. Could the misunderstanding have arisen due to a differing opinion of what a legging/stocking is? Before I embarked on my research, this was my analysis:

Point 1 : Material
Stockings are made of nylon and are prone to getting runs and hooks in them, whereas leggings are made of thicker cloth.

Note: My "stockings" were overstretching to the point of translucence when I last wore them.

Point 2 : Crotch construction
Stockings cannot be worn on their own, i.e. without a skirt over it, whereas leggings are fine on their own if so desired (though unless one is really skinny, that is to be discouraged).

Note: I classified mine as "stockings" as the crotch construction was flimsy, just like those of a pantyhouse...and this definitely cannot be worn on its own.

Point 3 (a point of uncertainty) : Finishing
Stockings usually cover the feet, whereas leggings usually end off at the knee or ankle. But what about footless tights then - are they a form of stockings or leggings???

Note: Mine has a covered finishing.

I bitched about this incident to a friend. But not only was she unempathetic, she pronounced the wearing of leggings/tights madness in a hot, tropical country like Singapore. She added that the use of one is likely to promote wetness and bad odour in the nether regions. I wasn't certain if frustration or amusement was the right sentiment to feel, so I chose to ignore her instead.

When I got home, I scoured the web in search of a reasonable explanation. Found this from a yahoo Q&A website:

Leggings are generally opaque, footless, spandex pants. They can be cut like capris, too. They are thicker and can sometimes be used a substitute for pants with longer tops and shorter dresses. Usually made of a cotton/spandex or lycra blend.

Tights are sometimes opaque, but sometimes a little translucent. They usually have feet, unless denoted as "footless tights". These usually cannot be worn as a substitute for pants, due to translucent nature when stretched. Great for wearing under dresses/skirts in the winter. They make a lot of colors and patterns (like brights, argyle, lace, etc.) in tights.

Stockings are the most translucent, and usually have feet. These are commonly called "hose" or "nylons." The color variety is limited, usually to black, flesh tones, and white or ecru. Some have slight patterns, like fishnet and backseams. These are never a substitute for pants, and usually worn by professionals under suits. (Well, Hooter's girls wear them, too...) Also, some stockings don't have the panty attached, like thigh highs or stockings that are worn with garter belts.


So, I reckon tights come closest? If jeans and stockings are allowed, what's wrong with full-length covered tights?

These people need to take a chill pill, seriously.