Word of mouth often spreads exaggerations and misconceptions. As a responsible consumer society, it is essential for us to weed out facts from fantasy and make educated decisions about the products and media (in this case, magazines) that we expose ourselves to. I, myself, found that the preconceptions I held about Playboy were largely inaccurate, and upon closer speculation of magazines I've seen before, Cosmo and the Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated, I have realized specific errors in my way of thinking.
             Though not exactly a "family magazine," Playboy is not the hard-core pornography magazine that it is unfairly recognized as by ignorant millions. Pictures of nude models do not fill every page, and when they do appear, they are not positioned or accessorized in any kind of sultry or overly seductive manner. Usually upright, with a pleasant and sometimes coy smile, their countenances and gestures resemble women who are confident and clothed. This is more than can be said about the models of Cosmo who parade as article illustrations "somewhat" dressed, yet with ravenous, come-hither looks that are by far more seductive and erotic than the those in Playboy.
             Playboy also, surprisingly, differs in the content of its articles and jokes. Lengthy and abundant, these passages contain quite interesting and even practical information on topics that vary from the psychology of sex to entertainment news. The jokes, which usually refer to some aspect of sexuality, are mild enough to be tasteful. Compare this to the articles in Cosmo: most are how-to guides on proper make-up application, appropriate fashion for the particular season, and the ever-popular art of man-hunting/keeping/"breaking-up-ing." In short, there is hardly anything substantial or informative past a superficial layer or appearance and consumption that the magazine helps nurture in its readers.
             And what about the Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition? More a pictorial...