Married at first sight?

Accorsing to BBC reports, participants in the Channel 4 show Married at First Sight say that they were raped on their ‘wedding’ nights.  I haven’t watched the show.  I don’t intend to do so.  If the allegations are true, they are tragic, but they are not entirely surprising.    

A couple of weeks ago I was preaching about God’s plan for marriage as outlined in Genesis 2.   A man leaves his father and his mother (so this is a recognised social construct).  He clings to his wife (so a new household-family unit begins) and the two become one flesh (re-emphasising the new family unit and suggesting sexual intimacy).   Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis when he is asked about the meaning & permanence of marriage.  He adds ‘what God has joined together let not man separate’.  Jesus’ disciples thought this was draconian (particularly his prohibition of no-fault divorce). 

A biblical view of marriage is tough to live out.  But it’s also good.  In her wildly radical 2022 book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution, Daily Mail columnist Louise Perry points out that a traditional, conservative view of marriage akin to the biblical ideal is good for women, who are often net losers in divorce, hook-up culture, porn, BDSM and prostitution.  She also notes that where men have to tame their libidos, settle down, work and acquire property to become genuinely attractive potential life partners, economic growth and societal stability follow.

Of course, we have moved on from these kinds of religious, fusty, restrictive views.  Marriage is just two consenting adults making a legal agreement to look after one another and share stuff for as long as it’s mutually fulfilling.  Our legal system says so, Hollywood proclaims it and every schoolboy knows.  Why not conduct a ‘bold social experiment’ like Married at First Sight?

Louise Perry does a great job of spelling out (with clear, referenced, statistical evidence) the standard deviation bell curves of male and female sexual desires and relational needs in the book.  She points out that men and women differ in these respects as a matter of evolutionary necessity.  Women bear and nurture offspring so commitment and stability matter to them (whether they like it or not).   Who knows how C4 recruit and vet participants for Married at First Sight.  Assuming that they are representative of the population in general, a male participant with a minimalist view of marriage will be disappointed to discover that a his ‘bride’ is less interested in physical than emotional intimacy.  Assuming there is no mutually agreed understanding of marriage in the MAFS contract, participation in the show might be assumed by a horny man to be sexual consent.  He will be stronger than her on average & she won’t want the audience or the crew to think she’s a frump.  What’s a girl to do?

Some might argue that marriage is the problem here.  That female participants have foolishly entered into a misogynistic institution which renders them vulnerable to sexual violence.   I’d say that MAFS makes a mockery of marriage.  These are flippant sham unions for the titillation of voyeurs.  Regardless of the safeguarding procedures of the film company, someone is going to get hurt.  As Louise Perry points out, 99% of the time, it’ll be a woman.  She’d be better off with a biblical view of marriage.  We all would.   

Marriage is a sign of unity and loyalty

which all should uphold and honour.

It enriches society and strengthens community.

No one should enter into it lightly or selfishly

but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God.