Lifetime’s UNMATCHABLES Seems a Bit Unethical | Review

As part of my reality dating show roster, I, of course, watch Married At First Sight (MAFS) on Lifetime. Recently, this franchise made yet another spin-off from MAFS called “Unmatchables.” The concept of this show is to improve the dating chances of people who weren’t chosen to be on MAFS because their mindset and habits were too “extreme” or “risky” to be married off to a stranger. 

For example, one participant in the experiment would eat full meals on the toilet. Another participant didn’t know how to have in-depth conversations with women because he was so used to relying on his good looks. And on and on…

So, in Unmatchables, two of the dating coaches from MAFS, Dr. Vivana, a couples and sex therapist, as well as Pastor Cal, a relationship coach, help to improve each unmatchable individual through a series of challenges before sending them on a blind date with another unmatchable from the same city. 

This series consists of a lot of awkwardness, discomfort, cringe, and sex toys.

Unmatchables is mildly enjoyable to watch on its own but I couldn’t help but feel concerned for the participants because basic laws of psychological ethics seemed inapplicable to this show. The amount of participant discomfort felt concerning. 

Unmatchables’ Ethically Questionable Moments

A Shocking Choice

In episode 5, Pastor Cal put one of the participants, Gabrielle, up to a challenge where she would be speed-dating several men. The catch was that Pastor Cal had her hooked up to a shock collar that she placed on her upper thigh and when she would ask an inappropriate question on the date, he would shock her. Each time he activated the shock collar, homegirl was visibly shooketh.

Since when did it become okay to train grown adults like dogs? I get the shock factor (pun intended) needed to try to garner more views but it doesn’t need to be physically painful. 

Why couldn’t Pastor Cal have used a whistle? Or a buzzer? Or a hangman board or something?

Why use the painful method of shocking someone? It just seemed unnecessarily harsh. 

Surprise BDSM 

In episode 6, Dr. Viviana brought the participant, Niraj, to a BDSM sex dungeon to try to teach him to relinquish control in relationships.

When Niraj entered the dungeon he looked so incredibly uncomfortable and genuinely unaware that he was going to be involved in this sexually derived activity. And honestly, that look of discomfort never left throughout the whole challenge. A dominatrix comes out and starts commanding Niraj in berating ways. It just seemed so wrong. 

Even the abrupt way that this segment was edited looked like there may have been a lot of pushback and hesitancy on Niraj’s part. Maybe even the producers had to help Niraj process the experience positively for his testimonials.

This is all speculative.

I’m sure he was fine and that his high-strung personality just makes it harder for him to loosen up, but from an audience’s perspective, it looked like sexual activity without full sexual consent. Even Dr. Viviana looked a bit uncomfortable with it. Like she was questioning the ethics of it all as well. 

Mini Moments

Kissing a sex toy in episode 1.  I thought it was genuinely a kissing tool at first but I think later I randomly realized that that mouth toy wasn’t meant to come in contact with other lips… That’s just gross and a really embarrassing thing to do on TV. 

Exaggerated Cystic Acne + Thick Glasses = ugly? Acne and needing glasses are often out of people’s control sooo… it just felt like people who struggle with those things might interpret that transformation as themselves being inherently ugly which is saddening and not always the case. This moment in episode 2 was just very cringe-worthy and unnecessary. I think that whoever came up with these challenges could have brainstormed just a little harder. 

There were many more, cringey, uncomfortable, unnecessary moments but we’ll leave it at these two most outstanding ones for now. 

General Cringe

Breaking the News

When the experts tell the participants that they’re Unmatchable to their faces it comes off as harsh. You can see the participants struggle to hold back the offense they feel. But the moment they realize they’re going on a blind date, they light up again. The end justifies the means.

Tough Love

I get the “tough love” that the experts give to try to mold people into their “best selves” but the experts’ definition of unmatchable seems a little too broad. They classify people’s unique quirks and identify them as too strange to be loved and accepted as they are. Not kissing other people enough by a certain age is strange. Having chicken nuggets regularly in your diet is strange. Having an eclectic style is strange. It almost felt a little like the experts were trying to make the participants more average to give them a better chance of finding another average person. 

I get the logic behind it. Realistically, there are not many options on the extreme ends of the spectrum. But at the same time, it’s kind of sad because you want to believe that there’s someone out there for everyone who will love them, quirks and all. But how long do you wait on that unfounded saying before you give up and join the club of averageness?

Scripted Feel

Most of the challenges felt like a really poorly scripted play. You could tell that the people used to help the experts carry out their challenges were paid actors. Nothing about the challenges felt natural or real. It was hard to believe that the participants actually gained anything from the obviously artificial situations they were placed in. 

Why People Agree

There was only one participant in this whole experiment who said “no” and the experts took it the EASIEST on her. 

I think that the participants were so willing to comply with the uncomfortable circumstances they were put in because they were desperate for love. If they’re desperate enough to sign up for Married at First Sight then they’re desperate enough to allow their boundaries to be crossed if it leads them closer to love. 

Desperate times call for desperate measures. 

And this is not a jab at the participants. It’s human nature for us all to be desperate for something. It just takes a lot of bravery and vulnerability to display that desperation on TV. 

Legal Aspect

I’m assuming all participants signed a contract stating that they would be okay with whatever the experts threw at them. They trusted the experts enough and I’m sure they took away some positive lessons from the experience but the methods were definitely extreme, unconventional, and honestly unnecessary. Rarely did the experts actually target deep, long-lasting change in the participants, just shallow, biased outer change. 

It’s also up to experimenters to remain humanely ethical and cognizant of the mental and physical harm that they could potentially cause their test subjects. There were just too many moments that seemed a bit too extreme. 

Psychological Ethics

The MAFS franchise is a big social experiment meaning that they use human participants and must adhere to basic human ethics. 

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a set of ethical guidelines to ensure that experiments involving humans don’t cross any ethical lines. 

Section 3.04a of the APA’s ethical principles states that psychologists should avoid physical harm and minimize all harm when it is foreseeable or unavoidable. All the harm inflicted in Unmatchables was definitely avoidable. 

Section 3.04b states that psychologists should not facilitate any act where physical or mental harm is cruel, inhuman, or degrading. Now Unmatchables was super mild. Nothing was severe or life-threatening at all, but some of the things they had participants do was definitely degrading and could have easily been avoided. 

There is a very popular psychology experiment called the Stanley Milgram Experiment where participants were required to administer lethal shocks to a fake subject in another room. This experiment came under fire from the psychology community because participants went through the mental distress of thinking that they murdered someone (read more about the experiment here). The thigh shock collar challenge that Pastor Cal facilitated reminded me of the Stanley Milgram experiment except that actual (non-lethal shocks) were being administered. This kind of physical discipline usually only happens with training animal subjects, not humans. 

Moving Forward

Obviously, this show is trying to entertain with shock value but I think it’s much more impactful to actually dig deep into the person using the expert’s psychological skills and unlock whatever is holding them back from love. I think some methods are safe and fun but others should be second-guessed. 

I absolutely love Dr. Viviana and Pastor Cal. Their personalities work so well with each other and others. I just really hope that this show and what happened in it doesn’t come back to shock them in the inner thigh. It probably won’t but I had enough cringe moments to begin to worry.

In Conclusion…

I think this show would benefit from a little more depth and thought put into improving the participants’ love lives rather than simply making a spectacle of them to garner more views. 

So with being said, I’ll give this series a:

Rating: 4.8/10

Does Unmatchables seem a bit unethical to you too? Let me know in the comments below!

And be sure to subscribe for the latest blog updates (form in sidebar).

Peace, love, and lots of popcorn,

IMO