There was a law back in the 1940s that to get the less expensive postal charges for a magazine (a second class permit, IIRC), the magazine had to contain some text. That’s how Stan Lee got started at 17 on his comics writing career. I don’t know when that law went away, although I know it did sometime.
Printing pictures is expensive. Printing text is cheap. Real hardcore picture magazines were far more expensive than newsstand magazines for that reason. Any magazine you find at a convenience store will have large amounts of text in it, otherwise it would run $20 or more an issue and never sell.
I really, really hate it when people call these magazines porn or even soft porn. The magazines of the 50s that imitated Playboy had pictures of nude women in them, yes. Nude women with no genitalia. Not even any public hair. Only the most priggish censors could ever call them porn. Today’s “lads” magazines, as they call them in Britain, don’t even show breasts. This gets them around the barriers put up against Playboy and Penthouse many years ago when their nudity got them banned.
Penthouse, or the remnants of whatever Penthouse used to be, apparently shows sex of various sorts, according to trade articles I’ve read. Playboy still has only nudes. So Penthouse may be porn. Playboy is not. And the rest of the magazines are even less than that. Most fashion magazines will show as much skin as the lads magazines and some do as many nudes as Playboy. Are they porn?