*Simple. Because the publishing industry knows what will sell magazines.

And it ain't pictures of men.*

I don't think that's entirely true. I don't deny that men tend to be more visually oriented than women, but the plethora of cheesecake over beefcake is more than just biology. As someone upthread pointed out, the Greeks and Romans seemed to like pretty males an awful lot. What's changed since then? Not our DNA, but our culture.

We're in a rather odd time, historically speaking, in which women tend to doll themselves up a lot more than men. That's not a universal human trait. In the past (and in other cultures now), it was the men who dolled themselves up. High heels, wigs, makeup, lace, etc. In colonial days, men with skinny legs would pad their pants with straw to make their calves look shapely. I suspect that in other times and places, it would be Mike who got the fancy clothes, not Vicky. Or at least, he'd get as many as Vicky.

I also think that women like looking at men more than men realize. (Maybe even more than they realize themselves, at least according to some interesting research on sexual arousal.) I remember a couple of decades back, historical romance novels always featured gorgeous women, nearly "busting" out of their glamorous, low-cut dresses. That's because women like to see pretty women on book covers, right? Well, no. Turns out it was because the male publishers and art directors liked to see pretty women on book covers. Eventually, someone released a romance with a cover of a studly man leaning against a tree. Readers went nuts, and the book sold like crazy, just because of the cover. (Now fondly remembered as the "tree bondage" cover.) And it started to dawn on publishers that women don't want to look at women, they want to look at men. And suddenly Fabio was on every other romance cover. (Hmm. I'm not sure that was an improvement...)