Netflix's "Love Is Blind" (opens in new tab), in which 30 contestants (15 men and 15 women) courted each other for about six weeks and got engaged without ever seeing each other, had a promising premise. The program is a series that asks whether physical attraction at first sight is important in the search for "the one." Despite claiming otherwise, the program vowed to spotlight how shallow the person is

.

It is also outright false.

Given that the show was created by the creators of Lifetime's Married At First Sight, it is earth-shattering that another show made for streaming has failed to revolutionize the way love and relationships are portrayed on reality television. It is not. But it is still exciting to consider the possibilities. The announcement (open in new tab) itself focuses on whether love works as well in the real world as it does in the made-up world. Most of us portray ourselves differently on social media than we do in real life (e.g., filtered and facetuned photos that lack the realism of sitting at the kitchen table writing an essay for Love Is Blind while wearing cat hair-covered PJs) So the interest surrounding this series made sense. But then it aired.

Upon its debut, some critics praised the originality of the concept, but more critics were scathing, saying that the unique concept had dissolved into just another reality dating show. And not just a cliché, they said, but a "toxic, revolting," and "vacuous (albeit addictive)" addition to an already bloated genre.

One of the most frustrating things about Love is Blind is that it revolves around conventional attraction. Differences in age, height, race, religious beliefs, and life backgrounds are largely overshadowed by the fact that each participant in the series embodies traditional standards of beauty. (Outrageously, some of the contestants are so confident in their appearance that in the first episode they talk about how sexy they are and how attractive that makes them.) It is, no doubt, the result of producers' fear of taking the risk of "social experimentation" in favor of consciously leaning on the influence that can be gained by chasing after a few, well, beautiful couples. (Even the couples who were not shown much or at all were beautiful.)

In fact, everyone on the show has, at the very least, TV-level glamour. They don't look like ordinary people. And if we knew them in real life and bumped into them at the grocery store, we would all exclaim enthusiastically, "Wow, you look great. Do you always keep your eyebrows trimmed?" And.

This is not to say that just because someone is attractive enough to participate in a reality show hosted by Vanessa and Nick Lachey, everyone should be attracted to them. (Burnett's dislike is proof of that.) We know very well that attraction depends on more than just physical things: it depends on personality, morals, the traits you've already deemed important, and the feelings you harbor. Yes, that is the point of the show. But by casting above-average looking people, that point is largely negated from the start.

Maybe that's why I was so annoyed about this whole thing: despite its immediate popularity, which has already led to rumors of a second season, I still think that without the footnote (or safety blanket) of upholding a standard of beauty that has consistently been shoved down our throats, reality people who look like people who date, fall in love, and relate to one another. At the very least, I want to see contestants who can be anyone, from anywhere, and who happily exist outside of the aesthetic specifications we have been told we should reach. I want to see all sizes, all races, all statures, all incarnations of self. I want a show that is not ability-based and more open to contestants with sexualities other than heterosexuality. (I was deeply disturbed by Diamond's reaction to Carlton's bisexuality, and I hope that the show will be more open to contestants with other sexualities than heterosexuality.) I want the show to be like the world it was filmed in, not the world the show created.

The real world in particular is not beautiful at all. It is messy. Throughout Cameron and Lauren's relationship, the two have complex conversations about race, racism, and the different experiences of navigating the world. Cameron, who is white, tells Lauren that she knows that their children will be seen as black and will face racism as a result. And when Lauren shares her own experiences, he takes the time to listen and learn without imposing his preconceived notions and prejudices as a white man. This conversation was a tremendous starting point for opening a dialogue about the issues facing interracial couples. But it is only a starting point. The program could have created more dialogue by focusing on a more diverse cast.

For a brief time, we meet men like Westley (who is short and has been rejected before because of his height) and Taylor (who has never had sex). Had they not disappeared (opens in new tab), they would have given us a little more needed depth. It would have been interesting to hear Westley talk about how his height affects him, and it would have been cool to hear a 30-something man like Taylor talk more about navigating the heteronormative dating world when his sexual experiences are different from what is considered normal . Because that's the real world, different perspectives and opportunities to learn from them.

This is more than possible for the producers to achieve. The show's creator, Chris Coren, recently explained that he asked 30 people to participate, but only asked those couples who seemed able to form genuine connections to stay. And those people, as you can see, "just happened" to be conventionally beautiful. Meaning" they were the ones who those in charge believed would make the best television. But watching the contestants sit in the discomfort of not necessarily being able to connect with anyone, I think they could have made better, more groundbreaking, more realistic television.

Love can be absolutely blind. Physical attraction can and very often does grow from the seeds of encounters with people who like you, support you, make you laugh, listen to you, are kind and hardworking, and let you be someone you never knew you could be. But why not celebrate the variety of people that exist on this planet?" why uphold traditional definitions of beauty while claiming that looks are not a priority?

And why did everyone dress up even a little for that pod date?

Damn you, guys: no one can look at you.

For more stories like this, including celebrity news, beauty and fashion advice, savvy political commentary, and fascinating features, sign up for the Marie Claire newsletter.

Click here to sign up (opens in new tab)