Cosmopolitan was reshaped into its current format because of an editor named Bonnie Fuller. She was the one responsible for ramping up the sexual content and the ridiculous drivel of the "how-to-get-a-man" articles. She then went on to do the same thing for Glamour. That's why it's practically on the same (low) level as Cosmo. Glamour (and Cosmo, for that matter) used to have such good, worthwhile content. It seems that today's magazine editors think very little of women and teen girls by giving them sexist, frivolous stuff instead of the more substantial content that many of us want to read.

Glamour is a mixed bag. It's always seemed a step or two above Cosmo, with advice articles against drunk driving or tanning beds or careless birth control; they often give political coverage to both parties (I remember interviews with both Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton over the last few years) or "awareness" focuses on what celebs are doing for charities. However, it is still a fashion magazine, so the celeb pictures and high-priced fashion and occasional juvenile language are present. At least I can get something useful or entertaining out of it, unlike Cosmo or Redbook or the gossip mags. I always take the relationship advice with a big grain of salt, anyway.