In an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, (Fashion Ads Embrace Sex to Shock) fashion retailers and couture houses are using sex to sell. SHOCKING! Not really, but the points made in the article are enlightening. The article states that there are two types of sexual advertisements in the fashion industry:

In the U.S. fashion and beauty industry, sexual imagery in advertising seems to be going in two different directions: toward a more subtle sexiness that emphasizes the product, but also toward the more brazen and provocative.

A cited example for the subtle sexiness is “the print ad in national magazines for Unforgivable, the new men's fragrance by Sean "Diddy" Combs, suggests a menage a trois in the boudoir.” As for the brazen and provocative ad:

Then there is the homoeroticism of Dolce & Gabbana four-page ad series in recent issues of popular men's magazine GQ. In February, men in suits stare at an apparently naked man lying on the floor while a fellow nearby fiddles with his pants zipper. In the March series, the clothes fade into the background as men pose bare-chested, pants down, hands inside underwear, hands on the crotch.

Another article does a better job at dissecting the sexual ads of fashion (From bed to worse: Ads sanction porn). The columnist, Katti Gray writes:

It's not hard to figure out what the ad agency hired to represent Dolce & Gabbana is trying to stir up. That sex sells is an old notion, perhaps, more tried than true. Ad researchers do say that overtly and subliminally sexual ads can achieve the intended effect of arousing the senses and, in that way, maybe leave the advertiser's imprint on the mind. But while the Gap, as one example, continues to make a sort of fresh-faced appeal to sell its khaki pants, the more aggressive advertiser is betting the bank that it does not have to be so sanitized. Whether this moves merchandise is the question.

Neither of the articles answer the question of whether sex sells in fashion, but looking at the overall success of Calvin Klein, Dolce and Gabbana, and the teen-sex throbbing retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch, it’s hard to say that sexual images doesn’t help. The Newsday article highlights the debate:

"What typically happens is the depictions will attract attention to the sexual aspect of the ad but people often don't make a connection to the brand itself. The connection is not made to the brand because the focus is so strong on the sex," said the Iowa State University professor of marketing and consumer behavior…Two University of North Carolina researchers found in 2004 that there is a "disgust" factor, a degree of anti-consumerism from people turned off by the sexual overload. "That negative effect is strong. It can be very powerful and actually take away from a person's intention to buy a certain product.”

So there seems to be an equilibrium or balance in sexual advertising. Yes, sex attracts a reader’s eye to your page, but if you are not highlighting your product, how can you attract or even correlate a brand image to something that is not even given focus to. But at the same time, a bland ad with homely people from Arkansas will not sell high fashion, but put them in the corn fields with their shirts off and some oil, and maybe you can have the success that Abercrombie and Fitch has had with teens.