Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

And just like that... MAFS is over

428 replies

mumofoneAloneandwell · 18/05/2026 17:03

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8pz1k4r2lo

It was coming. You dont get good reality TV without people suffering.

This news however is awful. Bloody awful.

A groom dressed in a dark suit and a bride dressed in white walk hand in hand along a sunlit grassy path, surrounded by tall green trees. Bright sunlight filters through the leaves. A large green Channel 4 logo sits to the left.

Married at First Sight UK 'brides' say they were raped by onscreen husbands

Channel 4 was aware of one of the rape claims before broadcast, but the woman involved still featured in the show.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8pz1k4r2lo

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Differentforgirls · Yesterday 13:34

LetsMakeThisMomentLast · Yesterday 13:32

This was exactly my first thought when I read that. Did she then go on to FORCE him?

People are allowed to WANT sex @TidyRaven, But that’s not issue here. I honestly can’t believe anyone would compare these two situations.

Exactly. False equivalence.

Thindog · Yesterday 13:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

You're blaming the woman?

JudgeJ · Yesterday 13:44

The first reality programme I remember, and I'm very old, is Big Brother when they were normal people rather than the carousel of people who seem have agents and are referred to as stars. The only thing I watch now is Traitors, if that's a reality programme, all the rest are just casting couches for a load of wannabees.

Lalgarh · Yesterday 13:46

Woman's Hour had something on this earlier. The contestants who sign up for these are all bound by Non Disclosure Agreements and it's a grey area as to whether they count as employees during these shows. By any definition this looks like there is stuff all Care of Duty from the production companies.

I know someone who's an aspiring actor/ singer / celebrity in waiting who's had some low level features in papers on lifestyle items. Quite a lot of the contestants are signed up with talent agencies so there's also questions for other branches of the entertainment industry as to how well they were vetting the people on their books

ThatCyanCat · Yesterday 13:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

How long must a woman know a man before he is obliged to keep to an agreement to pull out?

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 13:50

JudgeJ · Yesterday 13:44

The first reality programme I remember, and I'm very old, is Big Brother when they were normal people rather than the carousel of people who seem have agents and are referred to as stars. The only thing I watch now is Traitors, if that's a reality programme, all the rest are just casting couches for a load of wannabees.

I loved BB at first. I stopped watching it when they got rid of the live feed. Remember that?

The live feed showed everything, then I would watch the 9pm show and the edit skewed everything that had actually happened.

The year I stopped was when the edit made an older woman, Carol, look like the "mother" of the house while the live feed showed she was a controlling bully.

They got rid of the feed for the next one and that was me done.

igelkott2026 · Yesterday 13:53

Parkingpermitfallout · 18/05/2026 18:07

You’ve edited your op.

Isn't that the point of the edit function? You can only do it for 10 minutes or so.

Thindog · Yesterday 13:55

ThatCyanCat · Yesterday 13:47

How long must a woman know a man before he is obliged to keep to an agreement to pull out?

Long enough to have a good idea of his background, trustworthiness, and degree of control. (And “pulling out” requires control.)There’s a reason why there is normally a period of courtship before marriage.

loveawineloveacrisp · Yesterday 13:59

God, some of the comments here are discussing. 'What did the women expect' and we're apparently brainless morons for watching this stuff.

ThatCyanCat · Yesterday 14:00

Thindog · Yesterday 13:55

Long enough to have a good idea of his background, trustworthiness, and degree of control. (And “pulling out” requires control.)There’s a reason why there is normally a period of courtship before marriage.

Sorry but that's not specific enough. It's too subjective. We are talking about at what point a woman stops being responsible for a man failing to pull out. Obviously a lot of women thought they were at this stage but weren't, so if we are going to determine the point at which a man and not his female partner is responsible for his dick, we need something concrete. Try again.

TightlyLacedCorset · Yesterday 14:04

twilightermummy · Yesterday 12:04

I think the "therapists" also have a role to play here. Some of the men were clearly very aggressive, some were outwardly abusive, yet the therapists would often side with them or try and explain it off as the woman's fault. Then they'd explain how they could pander to the guy further! It became infuriating to watch.

The women were very vulnerable on there actually as they risked being shown up on national TV. They would have put a lot on the line to go on the show, it could (and usually did) become very embarrassing. Along with the social pressure of the group - the show is basically a popularity show within that small group! I can absolutely see how this has happened.

Even in the early series I was stunned that so called certified therapists and psychologists were endorsing the project, there was little regard in my book for the potential psychological harm caused. The Australian version was completely whack in regards to both the matching and the wellbeing of the contestants. My father loved it and I really suffered being forced to watch to maintain rapport with him while caring for him as I knew a lot of it was edited and staged and frankly insulting to my intelligence.

I have a huge problem with TV psychologists/therapists. They appear to get away with crossing professional (as well as publicly making dubious assertions around the data of a topic) lines in a way they just wouldn't be allowed to in private practice. This really stood out during the Letby saga. I think regulations need to be tightened around their ethics and conduct in the media and I really hope any therapists involved in this program around the time these women were sexually assaulted are called to explain themselves. And if misconduct is found, their licences need to be revoked.

Because most certainly a lot of the pressure on these women to continue in the program when they were uncomfortable would have been a result of disappointing the 'experts'. A sort of 'white coat syndrome'. The experts are telling them it is good to have sex to make the project work, increase bonding and telling them the science says, making them doubt themselves in a way they wouldn't if the advice had come from a non- professional. But the variables and conditions of the so-called 'experiment' aren't as closely controlled as they would be in a real experiment.

It reminds me of old psych experiments on coercion a lot of which are deemed highly unethical now.

In any case, it's a total misuse of professional authority.

A terrible situation. To think the audience was enjoying it unaware. How vile.

All need to be held accountable. Producers, therapists, perpetrators.

As for Reality TV, it cannot die fast enough. I doubt it will though.

TidyRaven · Yesterday 14:04

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 13:34

Exactly. False equivalence.

I agree. They are not the same. One we have proof for, yet the victim hasn't (as far as we know) set out to ruin the offenders reputation. The other we have absolutely no proof of, yet the alleged victims have set out to ruin their alleged offenders lives and reputation.

eastegg · Yesterday 14:14

SignGrudgeBluebook · Yesterday 09:50

The blindfold is to represent the law being applied impartially, objectively and equally and in this case it is not. One of the accusers stayed with her 'husband' for six weeks after the end of the show in which she is now stating she was subject to (at best) sexual assault. If you were accused of sexual assault under these circumstances, would you not expect people to effectively laugh in her face? These allegations should never have seen the light of day let alone be in the public domain.

Accuse me of word salad all you like but the way the law is rightly applied means there are people being accused of stuff that they may or may not have done but the time to act appropriately was AT THE TIME. Not now when they have zero hope of defending themselves.

Shit, and here’s me thinking I knew what the legal ingredients of rape are.

Turns out it includes that the complainant must, if they were in any sort of relationship with the accused, immediately leave and cease to cohabit. All the law books are wrong.

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 14:14

TidyRaven · Yesterday 14:04

I agree. They are not the same. One we have proof for, yet the victim hasn't (as far as we know) set out to ruin the offenders reputation. The other we have absolutely no proof of, yet the alleged victims have set out to ruin their alleged offenders lives and reputation.

How can someone’s life and reputation be ruined if they’re anonymous? If you’re a woman you should be ashamed of yourself.

Locutus2000 · Yesterday 14:21

jessycake · Yesterday 08:09

Good I hate these low quality exploitative type of programmes , I used to hate channel 5s rage bait benefits programmes too, thankfully they have given up with those . You sign up to something with no editorial control and what they portray doesn’t always paint the true picture and it might be available forever to watch.

Channel 5 may have ceased production of the worst examples, but they are all over YouTube with thousands of comments and views.

Channel 4 seem to have revived the genre with that Dispatches 'investigation' into disability.

Ihatetomatoes · Yesterday 14:21

SignGrudgeBluebook · Yesterday 09:50

The blindfold is to represent the law being applied impartially, objectively and equally and in this case it is not. One of the accusers stayed with her 'husband' for six weeks after the end of the show in which she is now stating she was subject to (at best) sexual assault. If you were accused of sexual assault under these circumstances, would you not expect people to effectively laugh in her face? These allegations should never have seen the light of day let alone be in the public domain.

Accuse me of word salad all you like but the way the law is rightly applied means there are people being accused of stuff that they may or may not have done but the time to act appropriately was AT THE TIME. Not now when they have zero hope of defending themselves.

"would you not expect people to effectively laugh in her face?"

No I wouldn't expect people to laugh in the face of someone who says she has been raped or sexually assaulted. Domestic abuse is widespread in society, perhaps victims don't come forward because some might 'laugh in their face'. Victim blaming in our society is rife. Rape cases have a very small chance of conviction, perhaps that's why many don't bother to go to court. People laugh in their faces! I've heard it all, shameful.

Lalgarh · Yesterday 14:23

TightlyLacedCorset · Yesterday 14:04

Even in the early series I was stunned that so called certified therapists and psychologists were endorsing the project, there was little regard in my book for the potential psychological harm caused. The Australian version was completely whack in regards to both the matching and the wellbeing of the contestants. My father loved it and I really suffered being forced to watch to maintain rapport with him while caring for him as I knew a lot of it was edited and staged and frankly insulting to my intelligence.

I have a huge problem with TV psychologists/therapists. They appear to get away with crossing professional (as well as publicly making dubious assertions around the data of a topic) lines in a way they just wouldn't be allowed to in private practice. This really stood out during the Letby saga. I think regulations need to be tightened around their ethics and conduct in the media and I really hope any therapists involved in this program around the time these women were sexually assaulted are called to explain themselves. And if misconduct is found, their licences need to be revoked.

Because most certainly a lot of the pressure on these women to continue in the program when they were uncomfortable would have been a result of disappointing the 'experts'. A sort of 'white coat syndrome'. The experts are telling them it is good to have sex to make the project work, increase bonding and telling them the science says, making them doubt themselves in a way they wouldn't if the advice had come from a non- professional. But the variables and conditions of the so-called 'experiment' aren't as closely controlled as they would be in a real experiment.

It reminds me of old psych experiments on coercion a lot of which are deemed highly unethical now.

In any case, it's a total misuse of professional authority.

A terrible situation. To think the audience was enjoying it unaware. How vile.

All need to be held accountable. Producers, therapists, perpetrators.

As for Reality TV, it cannot die fast enough. I doubt it will though.

Agreed. I have issues with professor David Wilson on his sensationalist Footsteps of Killers programme but to his credit he did quit as an advisor on big brother after "fight night" with Victor (I didn't really watch that year but did for jade era)

From 2005

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/prof-quits-after-the-big-brother-1112769

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/12/bigbrother.comment

Prof quits after the Big Brother bust-up

THE Big Brother household was finally getting back to normal today following a spectacular bust-up that forced one of the show's backroom staff to quit.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/prof-quits-after-the-big-brother-1112769

RudolphTheReindeer · Yesterday 14:28

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 13:26

Did she rape him?

I don't know why you're jumping on op for this comment. The expert's coercion of contestants of both sexes to have sex when they don't want to has and is also being discussed on this thread, alongside the rape issues. It is possible to acknowledge and discuss both issues without it being turned into a competition about which is worse. Refusing to acknowledge that men are coerced into to sex as much as women on the show because women are the only ones who can legally be raped doesn't benefit anyone.

decorationday · Yesterday 14:30

RudolphTheReindeer · Yesterday 14:28

I don't know why you're jumping on op for this comment. The expert's coercion of contestants of both sexes to have sex when they don't want to has and is also being discussed on this thread, alongside the rape issues. It is possible to acknowledge and discuss both issues without it being turned into a competition about which is worse. Refusing to acknowledge that men are coerced into to sex as much as women on the show because women are the only ones who can legally be raped doesn't benefit anyone.

How many men have made allegations of sexual assault?

RudolphTheReindeer · Yesterday 14:35

decorationday · Yesterday 14:30

How many men have made allegations of sexual assault?

Why does that matter?

Also have you considered it's much harder for men to acknowledge and come forward about such things? If any have been statistically they are much less likely to come forward. I bet lots more contestants have stories to tell, whether they do or not is another matter.

RobynRB · Yesterday 14:43

I was also a bit confused by Shona's comments in the Panorama, she said she consented to sex with Bradley but not him ejaculating inside her. That's fair enough, that's an issue between them. I don't see how you can ask CH4 or the company making the programme to control that?

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 14:43

TidyRaven · Yesterday 14:04

I agree. They are not the same. One we have proof for, yet the victim hasn't (as far as we know) set out to ruin the offenders reputation. The other we have absolutely no proof of, yet the alleged victims have set out to ruin their alleged offenders lives and reputation.

I have no words...

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 14:46

RudolphTheReindeer · Yesterday 14:28

I don't know why you're jumping on op for this comment. The expert's coercion of contestants of both sexes to have sex when they don't want to has and is also being discussed on this thread, alongside the rape issues. It is possible to acknowledge and discuss both issues without it being turned into a competition about which is worse. Refusing to acknowledge that men are coerced into to sex as much as women on the show because women are the only ones who can legally be raped doesn't benefit anyone.

No sorry. The woman in this case, while making a fool of herself, didn't take what wasn't freely given.

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 14:49

TidyRaven · Yesterday 14:04

I agree. They are not the same. One we have proof for, yet the victim hasn't (as far as we know) set out to ruin the offenders reputation. The other we have absolutely no proof of, yet the alleged victims have set out to ruin their alleged offenders lives and reputation.

Actually, who is the victim?

Swipe left for the next trending thread