Well as most of Australia is aware Married at First Sight (MAFS) 2017 has finished, to quote T.S Eliot’s ‘The Hollow Men’; “This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper.”  Frighteningly MAFS is already advertising for singles to put their heads in the noose of the next season. Even more frighteningly, I’m sure they will find many more willing victims.

This season I took time to admire the producers for emphasising that the show is an ‘experiment’. To me ‘experiment’ implies that they aren’t responsible for whatever accidents occur. After all, it’s an ‘experiment’, anything can happen, for good or ill.

What MAFS obviously isn’t is a process that helps individuals meet someone they can spend the rest of their lives with. I would be interested to see some statistics on the success of randomly matching similar aged, appropriately gender orientated individuals looking for a long term relationship with the success of this show.

At close of season 4 they had a total of 3 couples out of the entire 4 seasons of matching; and only one that has lasted any time at all. Interestingly the couple that have lasted since season 1 are also the youngest match, only had to consider moving a few kilometres ‘for love’ and, being from the first season, may have been selected more for a chance of success and less for screen drama. All the couples on the latest offering had to move states and sacrifice other relationships (at a minimum and sometimes complete lifestyles) for this new ‘love’.

So let’s do the math. Out of 46 individuals only 6 currently have a partner as a result of this show. This is a 13.04 % success rate if the latest 2 couples continue, or 8.7% if one couple fails and around 4% if both fail. Does it prove that MAFS is better than going it alone…..? It sounds like a very hit and miss outcome to me, no better than if they had configured these couples in any other random matching. Probably not as good as if they had matched them on proximity and genuine interest in a long term relationship as well as age and attraction to smell!

Yes smell, applicants were given T shirts that smelt of other applicants to see if they were attracted. And most interesting of all the couples with the best chance of success, as predicted by this method were……Alene & Simon, Nick & Sharon and Susan & Sean: According to MAFS expert Dr Trisha Stratford, who is a clinical neuropsychotherapist (the study of underlying biological attraction.) (http://www.mamamia.com.au/married-at-first-sight-best-couple/) And these are the couples who actually stayed together or at least both wanted to. Maybe just give participants the smell test and ditch the other relationship ‘experts’.

But I am still left wondering what the success rate would be if the ‘experts’ had actually helped guide these people through all the issues they faced. Maybe the relationships would only have lasted until there was no-one there to help. Maybe couples could have been offered ongoing assistance. But maybe……the participants would have learnt and grown as people, so they would be more ready to find a long term relationship on their own.

The ‘Experts’ try to look as if they’re contributing something to the ‘experiment’http://www.smh.com.au/comment/weve-been-conned-by-married-at-first-sight-20170402-gvc500.html

I spent some time imagining the couple of season 4 of MAFS having regular, professional, relationship, counselling sessions, instead of the public, group interrogations they endured. The couples might have had a better chance of success, and certainly wouldn’t have gotten away with as much ‘inauthentic’ behaviour (as Nadia said about Anthony). Other psychologists and relationship counsellors wouldn’t have had to feel so betrayed by their own profession. ( “I think that the psychologists who appear on it should hang their heads in shame because to be part of something that is so voyeuristic, so exploited, is not what psychology should be about — that’s my personal view.” http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/experts-slam-married-at-first-sight-after-it-left-one-contestant-scarred-i-had-to-go-incognito-and-cry/news-story/72418a2615c6f7b4cc0fc0353e14bb21) We, the viewing audience, might all have learnt something. And, you know what, I think it would have been just as interesting Television.

 

Alison

 

I always tended to shy away from reality TV but found myself getting sucked in by some of the relationship heavy formats. You know the ones ‘Wife swap’ and ‘Married at First Sight’ where people let themselves be filmed in intimate and stress filled situations, only made worse by the filming process itself.

Honestly who decides to go on these shows? Haven’t they ever watched a ‘reality’ show? Don’t they know that they will be manipulated, exposed and edited to display themselves in ways that may not be representative of their true selves at all? And all in the name of entertainment!

But, like watching a car crash, I find I cannot look away. Although ‘Married at First Sight’ (MAFS) is severely testing my resolve to stay tuned at the moment.

In case you don’t know MAFS is ostensibly an attempt to arrange ‘marriages’ between two individuals who might not have chosen each other, but who have a real chance of lasting happiness; – according to the 3 relationship psychologists, of the show, who sort through applicants to determine which ones would really be right for each other. A formulaic set of situations are then arranged; the marriage; honeymoon; and living together – all condensed into a few weeks. The whole process is, quite ominously I believe, called ‘The Experiment’. What is this some kind of Frankenstein’s monster deal or a more modern form of emotional experimentation?

The 3 relationship experts then proceed to comment, to camera, about what they see occurring in the relationships. Now here’s the part that’s really annoying me about the show. What the relationship experts don’t do is help the couples in any real way.

The relationship experts do not tell the couples why they have paired them together, in fact, when a recent participant asked this question, the experts struggled to come up with any coherent answer. Honestly it was like watching an inexperienced politician trying to dodge a journalist’s expert grilling on a topic ‘The Party’ has told them not to comment on.

The experts are not shown intervening and advising the couples when things n the relationships take a negative turn. When what the couple really need is a relationship expert to guide and assist them.

I am increasingly aware that what we are really watching is: – Individuals making very real attempts to find a long term relationship; who are being sabotaged by the reality television show; which is simultaneously holding out hope to these poor people; and sending them on an emotional roller coaster. All under the tender gaze of the entire viewing public.

And the sabotage is quite blatant. I am yet to see one of these pairings that does not have a potentially deal breaking flaw built into it. Here are some examples:

• He wants to have children soon but she doesn’t see having children, at all, in her future.
• He runs a farm in very rural Victoria, she lives in Sydney, runs her own cleaning business and is very closely involved in her extended, Maltese family. It takes a full day to travel between their homes.
• She is a very fit and active person who loves the outdoors and does not want anyone who smokes, drinks or spends much time watching sports. He smokes and spends nearly all his social time in the activities she dislikes.
• They seem to have nothing in common except their age, relative attractiveness and touching faith in the show and the relationship experts.

It’s just cruel. Especially when the couple are well matched, get on really well and want to stay in the relationship. Is the lesson here “You can have the lifestyle you want, or the partner you would be well matched with, but not both. You must sacrifice something for love, and it might be your relationship with your family.”  In fact they seem to excel at matching couples who live as far away as possible from each other.

Not surprisingly the experts success rate is appalling. Out of 13 couples matched on previous shows only one, from the first season, are still together. God help the twenty hopefuls enduring the current ‘experiment’.

Below: Alex & Zoe – the only couple who found a lasting relationship on MAFS have also had their first child together, Harper-Rose.

                 

And one final thought. What value do these relationship experts actually put on their own and their professions reputations? The experts role on this show makes it look like a monetary value.

My only hope is that the relationship experts didn’t read the fine print when they signed contracts with this show and didn’t realise how they were letting their clients, themselves and their profession down. In other words I hope they were stupid rather than morally culpable.

Alison

Below are excerpts from an article I found online:

“A former Married at First Sight contestant has unloaded on the program ….. revealing all of the couples on the show split just weeks after filming concluded….. Clare Verrall, 32, “married” Jono Pitman on season two of the controversial reality series and launched into a twitter rant about the show’s manipulative producers and manufactured drama …… After the show ended, it was explosively revealed Pitman had a history of violence and assault charges, which was known to producers…… Verrall said producers failed their duty of care to her, saying the show destroyed souls for the sake of ratings…… Verrall said couples weren’t matched by a panel of psychologists like the show suggested, but instead were paired by the executive producer…… Nine has declined to comment on Verrall’s accusations.”

Ebony Bowden – September 14, 2016  (htpp://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/reality/married-at-first-sight-star-reveals-all-says-couples-broke-up-within-weeks-20160913-grfrtf.html)