February spells the end for some of our favorite reality TV shows, from "The Bachelorette" and "Joe Millionaire" to some shows that we've never heard of, like "The Surreal Life", to those that we've never been so desperate that we needed to watch, like "Celebrity Mole". But just when I began to hope that America was growing out of the reality show faze, a new season of "American Idol" began and FOX's rivals seem to be searching frantically for something with which to compete. Enter, by far, the most degrading, insipid and superficial show to hit prime time television since "Temptation Island".

ABC's newest addition to the myriad of reality shows that are nothing like reality is "Are You Hot? The Search for America's Sexiest People." Now, I realize that here in the Pioneer Valley, we may not be surrounded by as many beautiful faces as those that parade the streets of New York City and Los Angeles, but are we so desperate that we have to tune in every Thursday night to watch men and women bare chests and strip down to thongs for our only source of eye candy? The prize isn't even that great: the female and male winner get to split a $100,000 cash prize.

A panel of so-called celebrity judges that we've never heard of are prepared to tell America just what is beautiful and sexy in appearance. The creators of the show claim that the goal behind "Are You Hot?" is noble: to provide America with 128 different definitions of hotness. A nice thought, truly, but what will appear on television is over 100 skinny twenty-somethings with big breasts, little round bottoms, impressive muscles and nice packages. Any teenager who watches this television show is guaranteed to believe that the only acceptable body type is caused by anorexia, steroid use and plastic surgery. Don't television, music and film parade around enough of this type of role model? Does America really need this superficial ideal reinforced as "reality"?

In an article in the Feb. 14 issue of Entertainment Weekly, the show's casting director ironically tried to defend the noble ideal behind the show when he claimed, "Personally, I think skinny women with dark hair and dark eyes are attractive. But as a casting director, I try [to find] a little bit of everything, a mixture." What mixture? Sixty skinny girls with different shades of dyed and fried hair, half of whom bare their stomachs, including protruding ribs, the other half flashing artificially enhanced cleavage or a little bit of ass don't qualify as a mixture.

Now it may seem that I'm indignantly blowing my horn only about the degrading effects of prancing barely-clothed women on television. To be fair, I'll admit that I'm tempted by the thought of 60 good-looking men flexing their muscles for a whole hour. But then I thought about the premise of the show. In the same Entertainment Weekly interview, the show's creator Mike Fleiss succinctly put it: "[With "Are You Hot?"] you don't have to sit through a bad version of some old Aretha Franklin song; you just see good-looking people either validated as gorgeous or cut to shreds as posers." There's no discernible talent required to be on this show ... you just have to be willing to take off your clothes on national television. Part of the audition process for the show guaranteed that ABC would present us with America's stupidest people. Prospective contestants were asked disgusting questions including, "What would you do with your life if you were ugly and weighed 400 pounds?" Now I know that this question probably made the contestants think so hard that their pretty little heads hurt, but I'd like to present a different opinion: 400-pound people aren't ugly and people can be beautiful without a sexy superficial appearance. While it is disappointing that television continues to present a superficial ideal of appearance, I hope that American television viewers are smarter than the show's contestants, and realize that "Are You Hot?" isn't "reality."