I commented on 2 other ideas already.. first and best being REMOVE THIS STUPIDITY FROM TELEVISION. 2nd, have nude contestants... and that answer can go for this one too. Have lots of hot nude FEMALE contestants and do lots of closeups... then I might watch.

I hate to burst your bubble.  After a few weeks without a decent meal, that attractive model looks a Hollywood crack whore.  

i only need to say one thing. HORRIBLE

Get rid of the bow wows!

Also: move this show to premium cable so you can have full frontal nudity. Let's be honest, folks: a significant percentage of the viewers of this crap are men who tune in (with the sound off) in hopes of seeing the babes in bikinis. This show has a most significant T&A quotient, so the producers and everybody else should just drop the pretense and show the women in the altogether.

OK, by saying that you would like to see cuter women is not sexist. Girls, who would you rather see: an overweight, hairy guy, or a cuter, well built guy. It's not sexist to enjoy looking at someone cute, it's sexist to show instant favoritism towards them. Out of all the cute women that have been on Survivor, most of them have been stuck up and I've been glad to see them go. But adding a few cute girls and guys would not be the worst idea in the world for the ratings.

They have enough of those as it is, which always causes uneasiness in the group.

Parade them around naked. Include the censorship blur for T.V. but sell the video without the blur. Oh yeah, take away all the razors.

I am more interested in what the women have to say. Not if they look like Cindy Crawford or Halle Berry.

after a few weeks in the wilderness without a razor, even a supermodel will start to get a little haggard. i seriously doubt that people are watching the show for it's blatant sex appeal.....

Don't think it would really make a difference either way. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing another Elisabeth.

I don't think they should do this intentionally, but if it happened by accident--but the players were still smart, not bimbos--I wouldn't complain about it. Perhaps Lifetime Network, Oxygen, or WE Network could do a women-only version of the show.

Survivor is not a beauty contest. This show is about skill and personality. If you want to watch bimbos, you should watch Temptation Island.

The only "no-brainer" with this issue is all the men here seem to be thinking with another part of their anatomies and not their real brains. If they were, they would not make comments that a prime time tv game show should be concerned with beautiful women as close to being naked as possible. If that's what you are after go watch the playboy channel or learn not to think so shallowly. After all these women are unbathed, underfed and trying to survive nature just like the men on the show are. The idea behind Survivor is to present a fairly accurate cross-section of different people to make for interesting interactions. If all the women were absolutely gorgeous, or even if most of the women were, this idea would be lost. If you don't get this, you cannot totally appreciate Survivor and shows like it, so you should probably stick to shallow fluff shows made for your type of thinking like Baywatch. Sex and beautiful bodies are great, but there are other levels of enjoyment and importance that are also great.

and make them NUDE and move the show to HBO

Yeh! Here we go man! What about an Survivor taking pace in Amsterdam or Thailand? Hehe... :-))

I think this is another stupid man idea. As if every time you look around, you don't see half naked women posted on all advertisments and billboards and commercials. Shouldn't Survivor pick people who possess the characteristics of strength and motivation? Not beauty.

The contestants on Survivor are real people. Just like in real life, some are attractive, but most are very average-looking. If you specifically choose contestants for their physical appearances, the whole "reality" portion of this wonderful show will be ruined. This program revolves around personalities and strategies, not around who looks best in a bikini.

Yeah, it's nice to look at them and all. But the downfall is that if they have more attractive chix then they're gonna start having more attractive dudes and then I wont be able to get on survivor cause I don't have huge muscles and stuff like that. Jeremy will be the ULTIMATE SURVIVOR!!!!!

I WANT YOU TO INCLUDE BEAUTIFUL WOMEN. I WANT THE WOMEN TO GET NAKED IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA.

I find this comment offensive and sexist!

I'm a woman and a young, hot one at that. I will be the first to say that sex sells, so find some hotties, even chicks like to check out other chicks, lesbian or not.

This is REALITY TV.

try to get better than the scanks on the first show

Like we don't see women enough. It's time for us ladies to see some men. Most women like to look at sexy men, they are just too afraid to admit it! I wanna see some tight bodied men on there! Let 'em get all oiled up and mud-wrestle! The guy who is least appealing will be the one to get thrown off! The one who is the sexiest (and doesn't whine about everything) will win the million bucks and gets to be my sex toy!!! (If we gotta have more women, atleast give us someone fine! With tits atleast! Jenna was cute, but what happened to her chest? (what chest?)

women are great

Dumb suggestion. Guess you have only men (or lesbians?) writing your questions. If you're going to call for more eye candy, the least you could do is be egalitarian, and offer hot guys for the ladies (and gay men).

The best part was that a wide cross section was shown. (& what was wrong with the women on Survivor I?)

I totally agree, I'll tell you...I'm a straight male, but I almost think I would rather see Richard parading around naked than Sue!!!!!

Keep some regular people too, but a few more HOT oneswould not be all bad ...

No-brainer here. They could all be Penthouse Pets. And they would be naked along with the revolving weekly Playboy Playmate guest hostess.

Name a show that couldn't afford to include more attractive women.

Are you kidding me? Why WOULDN'T the producers of Survivor II pick at least a few really, really attractive women for the new show? Colleen was half the reason I liked the original Survivor so much in the first place. I'm not saying everyone on the cast needs to be a supermodel, but the least CBS can do is make up for parading Sue (and her bizarre horizontal belly button) in front of us for 13 weeks by throwing us some more eye candy in Survivor II. We've earned it!

A no brainer.

Certainly! Have more attractive "Jennalike" women still can't get her haunting features out of my eyes :-)