Reine, I too have thought that but one could say the same for men's magazines. I recently looked at a Forbes magazine that was specifically addressing very expensive "toys" more or less and was absolutely fascinated and awed at the prices of a Swiss watch that chimed the hours--850,000.00. Yup, nearly a million bucks. What I think happens is that the real audience for a lot of fashion is small, but in order to pay for the "display" they try to appeal to the average person and often do. As you say, it looks great in the mag, but in reality, you wind up looking like a hooker and out of place.
Men's mags sell the same look--GQ for example, but men --in most cases--just don't dress that way anymore. The only males that I see now wearing suits are the young guys from the Mormon church.
The other side is that I think more and more women dress in the "I don't give a s..t mode a lot these days. When I read what the girls here say about dressing, and then I try to fit that in with what I actually see, I know why a lot of girls get read and ugly comments--they simply don't fit in with the norm. I've lived in California for 50+ years and have seen the fashion of both men and women hit the skids--also in part to the fashion industry that caters to the "grunge?" look--torn pants, poor choice of color matching, etc.
It used to be "dressy "casual here (loafers, wool pants or khakis, sweaters or jackets; dresses for the women or slacks and blouse. Now it is jeans and sneakers and tee shirts for far too many, especially older women) -now it is slovenly at best.
Most of the GGs I see probably haven't worn garters and hose since the sixties and while there is certainly some eroticism to them, they do seem over the top in ordinary wear but certainly not if porn fashion is what drives a lot of people. I just don't know and haven't figured that one out yet.
If one is a stay-at-home CD, then any fashion can work, even over the top, because one is never OTT in one's own company.
It is mostly fantasy anyway, isn't it?