We imagine ourselves to be far more virtuous than the ancient Romans who flocked to the Colosseum to watch slaves and prisoners killed by starving animals. But I’m honestly not sure that, at a moral level, staging domestic abuse as prime-time entertainment is any less grotesque. And yet here we are: all 10 series of the C4 flagship reality show Married at First Sight have been taken off streaming platforms after a BBC Panorama documentary aired in which participating women alleged that their on-screen “husbands” abused and sexually assaulted them.

The format of the show selects complete strangers, purportedly following a battery of psychometric tests, to be “married” in a mock ceremony. The “couples” meet for the first time at the ceremony. They are then installed in a luxury apartment near other “couples” in the series, and must share a living space and a bed for three weeks, away from family and support networks. During that time, they face intense scrutiny that forces artificial intimacy. What could possibly go wrong?

Needless to say, the show was already controversial. April Banbury, a participant in the 2022 series, said the show “ruined her life” after the man she was paired with, George Roberts, was arrested for alleged controlling and coercive behavior. Another 2023 couple, Brad Skelly and Shona Manderson, were asked to leave the show after their relationship was deemed “unhealthy”. Brad was seen telling his on-screen “wife” to “shut up” and speaking about “allowing” Shona to express herself.

Manderson alleges in the Panorama program that later that night, during consensual sex, he ejaculated inside her without her consent. Skelly, for his part, denies any wrongdoing, and the couple remained together for six weeks after the show. Another Panorama interviewee, “Lizzie”, alleges that her on-screen husband intimidated and repeatedly raped her, saying: “you can’t say no to me, you’re my wife.” Lizzie alleges he threatened to have her attacked with acid if she told anyone. Despite reporting his threats to the show’s welfare team, no one seems to have suggested she leave the program. Another interviewee, “Chloe”, makes similar allegations against her on-screen husband.

How did anyone imagine for even a moment that a format like this would not be a magnet for at least some men who might, let’s say, be less than well-adjusted? In effect, MAFS simulated an arranged marriage in an immersive format, without any of the cultural context or social support such a pairing would normally receive, and as a public spectacle. It was pretty much inevitable that under these pressurized conditions, some of the pairings would deteriorate into abuse, especially given the forced intimacy and difficulty faced by the women in exiting the bubble. The programmers ought to have seen this coming from space. Either they didn’t, or they did and simply didn’t care.

Professor Helen Wood, a media sociologist interviewed for the show, described how the riskiest programs from a welfare perspective are those in an immersive environment, such as MAFS. But these are also the most compelling. It’s a bit like turning the Stanford prison experiment into a TV show, and interviewing the prisoners and guards at intervals to see how submerged they have become in Stockholm Syndrome.

“Lizzie” is now pursuing a legal case against CPL, the show’s producers. Despite the scandal, I doubt any grave consequences will follow for anyone responsible. But it’s not just producers who should take a look at themselves: viewers and “celebrity” outlets are also complicit. The women in the Panorama documentary are mainly calling for more “safeguarding” and better “welfare”. These revelations ought to prompt a deeper reckoning about the national predilection for staging low-grade psychological torment as entertainment.

---

Mary Harrington is a contributing editor at UnHerd.

moveincircles

---