Well, this topic has made me a little confused.

Ripped stocking's and fishnet's in goth fashion seem quite largely accepted but I've recently noticed that no matter what your wearing ripped stocking's seemed to be taken in a sexual attitude.

For example: my style is a cross between Lolita, Victorian and somewhat steam-punk/punk, so basically I dress like a little kid. Most of the time people comment of the 'cuteness' of my outfit's but paired with ripped stocking's automatically I'm someone society doesn't want to associate with.

Does anyone understand this logic?

Although thesedays fishnet stockings seem rather tame, they do, without doubt, carry potent sexual associations. I'm not sure how far back they go on the continent, but they achieved a degree of notoriety during the Victorian era, when modesty was a virtue, and - as the song goes "a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking". That's ANY stockings. Obviously, stockings of any kind have a level of appeal, but mainly because they emphasise the shape of a woman's leg while letting the viewer's imagination guess what the leg itself might look like. However, fishnets subvert that; they reveal an awful amount of leg, and in that way act as a "come-and-get-me" advertisement. Those who pandered to the tastes of "gentlemen" in the nineteenth century were quick to recognise that, and they soon became "de rigeur" as wear for girls in chorus lines at less reputable theatres and music halls; as many of those girls - by reputation - had a "second career" providing after-hours entertainment to stage door johnnies, fishnets quickly also made their way onto the streets and became part of the uniform of prostitution. And that very much remained the perception of them until the 1970s; good girls simply didn't wear them.

Punk changed all that. In order to challenge assumptions, girls tended to dress "provocatively" (often, like stylised streetwalkers), and that included heavy use of fishnets with tiny skirts and heels. Inevitably, it also made its way into the goth look, but has been even more sexualised, I think, because of the "ripped" element - the implication being that the girl wearing them is so shameless that she can't even be bothered to wear stockings that aren't torn, together with the question over how they GOT torn in the first place. It becomes even more potent in a "lolita" look; as you've said, that's very much about innocence, and little-girl looks; combine that with stockings which clearly imply something far darker and more mature, and the mixture becomes both highly provocative and disturbing. It's a reason I'm not particularly fond of the lolita look; even the name should give a clue as to what it's trying to achieve, and I find the willing association with, and acceptance of it by, women a little... Bizarre?

I might even go a step further from that and say [depending on when in the Victorian period we're talking about of course] the stockings normally used by women would have been over-glorified socks. I don't think it was common for women to wear really sheer stockings like we do today unless they were performers of some kind.

There may be a class thing at play here as well. Lace and silk were all relatively expensive and may have been out of reach of your average adult entertainer. Fishnets would have been a lot cheaper.

I am not sure I believe this, but this page claims they didn't even arrive in the United States until the middle of the Edwardian era. I am reasonably sure poor women wouldn't have been wearing lace or silk for stockings; maybe they used sheer lawn cotton?

Point taken. Although satin, if not silk, and lace were often included in costumes; I assume that they were provided by the theatre rather than the performer.

However, I've little doubt that it was true for women working the streets.

During WWII women even drew seams down their legs to look like they were wearing stockings. There were even cosmetic "liquid" stockings to achieve the same effect.

Kinda agree with the points already made above. But as was also pointed out, stockings were an everyday garment, like socks, and I suppose not wearing stockings, or wearing stockings that appear to need replacing would have indicated that the lady was, as was said, shameless. Hence why during the rationing period, when even every scrap of fabric was being rationed and stockings were included in this, women would actually darken their legs (sometimes by staining them with tea for example), and then draw the seam up the back. Although it was probably common knowledge that the ladies were NOT wearing stockings due to the rationing, it at least kept up the appearance that these ladies were respectable.

I'm not sure that wearing threadbare stockings would indicate that a lady was as shameless as it might indicate that she was simply poor. They were more of a fashion statement than an indication of respectability.
This why overseas, a GI with stockings to "trade" was virtually guaranteed to make a new friend.

Hmmmm. I didn't realize that the statement put forth by the torn stockings and Lolita-look would seem so disturbing. That's definitely not something I want people to assume about me.

See, what I would think is that torn stockings are thought of as being unkempt, like as if you're too poor, or maybe even too trashy, for stockings that are in good repair?

.___. Maybe I should get some new stockings.

Don't let what other people think affect how you dress.

Yes, of course not!

Damn you self confidence for even thinking that. -shakes fist-

Not today it wouldn't but back in those days it probably would. Why would these ladies go to such length to make it appear they were wearing stockings when they were legally banned from doing so? I highly doubt it was a fashion statement...fashion adapts to fit the circumstances, and besides, even poor working-class ladies would have done the same. In fact, for a time (and for the first time) women actually took to wearing trousers in Britain during the war, as they were required to take the place of men in factories. I do remember being told by my grandmother that it just wasn't "done" to be seen with bare legs in public at the time, hence why I'm leaning far more to the respectable image than a fashion image.

But it was a very different time back then. Nowadays, certain individuals can actually get away with torn up tights (goths, punks etc) because they are deliberately trying to look different from the norm. Some tights, and raggedy tights are sometimes still associated with the street walkers, simply because its a popular (and sometimes accurate) stereotype that they are trashy and skanky. Regardless of whether the times are different or not, not many "mainstream" ladies would wear their tights in the same way, because they also know they could be associated with hookers. However, a hard, edgy look still sometimes adopt this because it is against the norm. This is probably part of the reason why goths will get harrassed because they are "obviously" sexy kinky "dethchix"

The goal of Lolita fashion is modesty, and a 'cute' or 'refined' look rather than a 'sexy' one. (Not a lolita, but read a few articles from curiosity)
I agree with you though, the name is rather... unfortunate



I think they may have worn coarse woolen stockings. Yes. Batty pays far too much attention to esoteric things.

Good thinking, Batty, but...

The article you've provided talks about 18th century stockings. The period under question is from 1837 onwards...