Rape allegations deliver sobering check to fans of reality TV hit MAFS

No matter your personal opinion, you can’t deny Married at First Sight is a certifiable hit.

For every person who thinks the reality TV juggernaut’s popularity signifies the end of human dignity is another who inhales its controversies, divisive personalities and endless shots of people open-mouthed, gaping with shock and judgement.

It’s certainly not for everyone although the Australian version counts as among its fervent fans, famous actors Nicola Coughlan and Saoirse Ronan (there must be something in the water in Ireland).

MAFS is not the first product designed to appeal to audience appetite for scandal, nor will it be the last.

The Australian version has been through cycles and cycles of head shakes, eye rolls and negative headlines – which is exactly what the producers want – and no volume of “lowest common denominator” cries will see it off the air. It only fuels interest.

The format had originated in Denmark in 2013 and was sold around the world. The concept had been billed as a “social experiment” in which complete strangers are matched by so-called experts and the first time they meet is at their wedding.

The marriage and the celebrations are fake and not legally binding, but the couples are expected to make a go of it for real – all in front of the cameras, of course.

The show has been running in Australia since 2015 but what had started as seemingly a genuine attempt at matchmaking and love soon morphed into a series that prioritised controversy, scandal and onscreen feuds.

It increasingly cast strong-willed contestants who understood that getting your 15 minutes of fame meant performing certain archetypes, and even better if they couple swap or “cheat”.

There are those who would argue that MAFS is a bit of harmless fun, and others who would say that it actually reveals something particularly nasty about human nature, which for better or worse, has been exposed to the public.

But the allegations of rape and sexual assault out of the UK version of MAFS this week has really upended the idea that the controversial format could be nothing more than guilty pleasure entertainment.

BBC program Panorama revealed on Monday that two women alleged they were raped during the filming of the UK series and a third claimed she was the victim of a non-consensual sex act.

In one alleged incident, one woman said her onscreen “husband” had raped her and then threatened to attack her with acid if she ever told anyone.

Lawyers for the onscreen “husband” denied the allegations to the BBC.

It was the women’s contention that the production did not do enough to protect them.

The TV network, Channel 4, released a statement which said that the allegations are uncorroborated and disputed, but that an independent external review has been commissioned.

The production company CPL said it had acted appropriately in all cases, and defended its welfare system as “gold standard”.

The accusations have blown up in the UK and around the world where versions run, and even led Britain’s Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, through a spokesperson to comment, “These are extremely concerning and serious allegations”.

Channel 9, which hosts the UK version of the series, has pulled all episodes of the show from its catch-up streaming service. Channel 4 in the UK has also removed the show from its platforms while the review is ongoing.

The BBC reported today that London’s Metropolitan Police has encouraged anyone who believed they experienced sexual assault while participating in the production of the series to contact it, although it had not yet received any reports.

The Australian production of MAFS deploys background vetting including police checks and a 24-hour security hotline to report work-related threats.

The fallout over these British allegations is unlikely to be contained to just MAFS UK.

It will provoke wider questions of an industry that relies on controversy and what its duty of care is to its participants and to the audience.

MAFS Australia, which is produced by Endemol Shine and broadcast on Channel 9, had earlier this year been embroiled in another scandal of its own in its most recent season.

The show had cast as one of its “grooms” a 30-year-old former soldier and conservative Christian named Tyson who told the audience he wanted a partner with “submissive vibes… otherwise we’re going to have problems”.

He had other requirements too: a woman who would be a stay-at-home mother to the five children he wanted to have, and that she can’t have slept with too many other people.

He very quickly told his new “wife”, Stephanie, she was “frigid” because she only kissed him once, and that she would need to give up her career.

He was later challenged by the show’s experts about his views, and called out on the fact he consistently talked over the women but would listen to the male therapist, even addressing him by name.

There is an argument that there is social value in casting someone like Tyson in the middle of a greater spotlight on the manosphere, resurgence of regressive gender attitudes and the tradwives phenomenon because it allows for a public reckoning, but is a scandal-forward forum the correct one for a nuanced conversation?

Is it doing more harm in platforming toxic male behaviour than good by semi-identifying the red flags for the audiences it’s supposed to serve?

Casting people like Tyson is no accident.

MAFS wants to put to air thorny personalities who will poke and provoke, who will say outrageous things that generate headlines and memes, and make viewers hate them or defend them. Tyson was just the latest in scores of prickly personas.

The worst thing you could be is a normal person.

The people who self-select into a series like MAFS audition know the tropes of a reality TV “dating” show, the threat of a “villain edit” in which the most unflattering aspects of them are highlighted for the program, and the likelihood of the audience reaction on social media.

The public have a view about the type of personality that chooses that experience, which is to say, that they’re not the kind to attract a lot of empathy.

When the public associates an archetype that is seemingly “fame-hungry” and “shameless”, there can be a “well, what did they expect” when things come undone.

Even though we’ve all heard tales of reality TV producers across the industry who emotionally cajole and psychologically manipulate, and the use of tactics such as deliberately putting contestants in triggering situations.

But reality TV productions are a workplace, and anyone involved, whether on camera or off, is entitled to basic protections of safety and care.

A spokesperson for Nine Entertainment, when asked if there were any plans to review or change its practices or guidelines in the wake of the UK incident, said, “Nine and Endemol Shine take their obligations in respect to the health, wellbeing and safety of the participants of MAFS Australia extremely seriously.

“All participants have access to the show psychologist and welfare resources during filming, during broadcast and once the program has ended.

“Nine also provides an additional service for participants should they like or need further individual and confidential psychological support. This service gives participants access to clinicians to support those involved in the program in relation to their experiences.

“This service is available to all participants for as long as they need it, with no end date.”

Reality TV shows are high stakes environments with commercial demands, attention metrics and combustible personalities often with ambitions of bigger fame. A lot of people have a lot on the line, and in pressured situations, things can go wrong.

It’s not that the MAFS UK incident was inevitable and ultimately, the resolutions will follow this promised investigation, but the industry as a whole should expect a wider reckoning.