Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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

457 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
AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · Today 08:12

I think a line has been crossed here obviously but to try and defend such programming working class women have been given hands up into minor celeb status where opportunities to get into entertainment are incredibly scarce.

I preferred it when there weren't a plethora of "minor celebs" all over the TV. And being featured on any kind of reality telly doesn't automatically mean they have any kind of talent for wider TV work (Scarlett Moffett got her break on Gogglebox. She seems like a lovely person but makes a lousy presenter).

It won't happen but I would like to go back to the pre reality telly and pre nepo baby (looking at you, Barney Walsh) days when people were on there due to talent and hard work. And with the rise of social media it's not like there isn't a way for anyone to make show reels and get spotted if they're good enough.

decorationday · Today 08:51

mids2019 · Today 07:06

I think a question is should a whole class of programming go because of these ,maybe anticipated , allegations? These type of programs have large audience and for good or ill are a popular form of entertainment that relies on the human hunger for gossip, scandal and titillation. Is it right that we now maybe take a puritan attitude of removing all such programming?

I think a line has been crossed here obviously but to try and defend such programming working class women have been given hands up into minor celeb status where opportunities to get into entertainment are incredibly scarce.

As I understand it, setting lions to kill humans in amphitheatres used to generate huge enthusiastic audiences. Is it puritanical that we no longer kill people for entertainment despite the large audiences who would turn out?

Or perhaps it is a good thing to prioritise ethics over viewing figures and profit.

ruethewhirl · Today 11:04

mids2019 · Today 07:06

I think a question is should a whole class of programming go because of these ,maybe anticipated , allegations? These type of programs have large audience and for good or ill are a popular form of entertainment that relies on the human hunger for gossip, scandal and titillation. Is it right that we now maybe take a puritan attitude of removing all such programming?

I think a line has been crossed here obviously but to try and defend such programming working class women have been given hands up into minor celeb status where opportunities to get into entertainment are incredibly scarce.

I don't think it's puritanical to recognise and reflect. To take Love Island as a comparison point, I've never seen the show in my life, but personally I feel it should have been cancelled after the suicides. Much as I've enjoyed MAFS in the past, right now I'm feeling like it too needs to be axed as a result of the revelations.

I think you're right about the human impulses behind shows like MAFS. The more I think about the whole premise of the show... I mean, its contestants are, by definition, people who have been struggling to create happy relationships. It's no wonder we only ever seem to get one Abi and John/Jeff and Rhi/Filip and Stella per series. The producers are deliberately recruiting, for the most part, people who are insecure/bitchy/damaged/arrogant/out-and-out trainwrecks in the name of 'entertainment'. It's never been a healthy premise, and lots of ways it's unsurprising that some contestants have turned out to be abusers. Tbh at this point I'm feeling quite grubby for having watched and enjoyed the show these past few years.

I do see your point about the shows providing a leg up into celebrity, but quite honestly I'm starting to feel that society needs to stop holding up celebrity as the ultimate goal when it appears little or no support is being offered to ordinary people who are suddenly propelled into the public eye and struggle to cope. I think influencer culture has a lot to answer for here too. Young people never used to venerate and chase after celebrity status the way they do now, and personally I think most of them were happier for it. It's been 20+ years since Jade Goody, it's probably time for a rethink.

In lots of ways I'm being hypocritical here given how much I've watched MAFS and discussed it on MN, but if it does continue I very much doubt I'll be watching it unless drastic changes are made, which I don't think will happen because 'drama' and 'ratings'. 😕 Also if Channel 4 dropped all its reality programme it would be left with a massive revenue hole. They might be forced to axe MAFS, but another dating show of some kind will no doubt spring up in its place if so.

JHound · Today 12:18

RobynRB · Yesterday 23:19

I get the logic of 'not consenting to x'... but how is this even provable in law?

How is any rape accusation provable in law.

Parkingpermitfallout · Today 12:27

JHound · Today 12:18

How is any rape accusation provable in law.

Jfc

ChamonixMountainBum · Today 12:42

TightlyLacedCorset · Yesterday 10:07

It really isn't.

Because the shows are predicated on conflict and drama. That's the very foundation of those programs. No conflict, no drama. No drama, no traction. It would be a snooze fest without it. Someone usually comes out of it looking bad or there is group coercion or bullying. The shows are heavily manipulated.

In the case of MAFS the 'sharing a bed' (tension) the documented reluctance by some participants to have sex and the advice to encourage sex (completely unethical) the group dining experience (?) where couples are encouraged to brag or chat about others and give their critique and opinion about others all created key fissure points. They are constructed as part of the programme architecture to create friction and keep the viewer hooked.

An intelligent person watches whilst acknowledging that and doesn't care. An unintelligent person doesn't even see it.

Edited

Very much this.

Same with all those 'Survivor' programmes. Would be a bit boring if all the contestants got on with one another, pulling their weight, being nice. Instead the biggest egotistical bullying twats are parachuted in to cause mayhem and misery for viewing figures.

roses2 · Today 14:25

I'm actually feeling really uncomfortable having watched the documentary and now MAFS USA showing. After the first night they were all interviewed and asked if they were intimate. There is a lot of pressure for them to have sex!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page