Where should those casting for reality TV dating shows draw the line when it comes to who gets to participate? Who gets to find a match (and instant fame) with the world watching? And are the processes followed by casting agents to weed out people prone to problematic behaviour up to scratch? These are questions that have grown louder and louder, of late, as men exhibiting worrying behaviour (or being revealed to have a problematic history with former female partners) make reality TV dating show line ups — and make the headlines.
Most recently, the conversation centred around Married At First Sight Australia groom Adrian Araouzou who — it was revealed — faced three charges of domestic abuse prior to appearing on the show, including actual bodily harm, domestic violence common assault and resisting police. Arouzou denied the claims and the charges against him were dismissed in court in 2021. After discussions, he was allowed to remain on the show. He later said in a statement: “Any suggestion of physical assault is categorically denied. I had my day in court, I was found not guilty [...] Any allegation otherwise is completely baseless and highly defamatory.”
Reports suggested that the charges were missed during the pre-show vetting process (the producers did not respond to a request for comment). In this case, Arouzou was found not guilty, but reality TV fans nevertheless raised questions about whether the charges should have been flagged. It also speaks to a broader debate – around who should and shouldn’t be allowed on TV dating shows – which isn’t slowing down. This series of MAFSA also saw an example of problematic behaviour when fellow groom Paul Antoine punched a hole in a door during an argument with his wife, Carina Mirabile; he too was allowed to continue in the series, subject to attending therapy and abstaining from alcohol, Mirabile revealed on the MAFS Funny podcast.
Speaking about the incident, Antoine later shared with Daily Mail Australia that his actions were “unacceptable [...] I instantly felt shame. I felt disgusted.”
The prevalence of toxic, aggressive behaviours by men in reality dating shows is something that production teams are trying to get a grip on, insists one insider — speaking to Cosmopolitan UK anonymously. But before we get into the BTS of the vetting process, it’s important to flag this is a global phenomenon.
On the British version of MAFS, groom Brad Skelly was removed from the series in 2023, alongside his wife Shona Manderson, after he showed controlling behaviour. An accusation of domestic abuse was also made about a 2024 groom, Alexander Henry, by a former partner. (He’s not commented on the accusations; Channel 4 continued to air his scenes because of his “clear” DBS criminal record check.)
In a statement, a spokesperson for Married at First Sight UK said: “As part of our responsibility to safeguard, everyone undergoes a rigorous vetting process, which involves a criminal record check, multiple psychological evaluations, medical records review, personality assessments and character references, before they can be cleared to take part. This is a process that is reviewed each series [...] this year we introduced home visits to potential contributors to the show. We can, and do, withdraw people following these checks.”
This isn’t a MAFS-specific problem either. In 2021, Love Is Blind’s Brennon Lemieux was accused of throwing a woman against a wall, which he denied. A year later, Women’s Aid contacted ITV in 2022 with concerns over the treatment of women on Love Island, following Adam Collard’s return to the All Stars version of the show (in 2018, the charity issued a warning about his behaviour, including signs of gaslighting and emotional abuse).
In response to these warnings, a Love Island spokesperson flagged that duty of care protocols were updated prior to Collard’s second appearance and said that all islanders now complete training on how to be respectful in relationships, recognise controlling and coercive behaviour, insensitive languages and be a good ally should they witness that from others.
This conversation is complex — far from clear cut. It’s important to note that none of these men mentioned were convicted of crimes related to abusive behaviour. But the prevalence of men displaying seemingly toxic behaviours begs the question: how do those who quickly unravel on-camera, displaying deeply worrying traits, keep slipping through the net?
For the drama
The cynic’s answer is that dating shows cast, and keep, people with dubious traits in their line ups for the drama they create, along with the headlines and social chatter that generates. The volatile male has almost become a stock character: the baddie in a modern media pantomime.
But our insider, Jamie*, who has worked in casting for a UK reality series, says this is a myth. She’s adamant that care is taken to avoid casting dangerous men, and allegations are taken seriously. The real reason why this keeps happening, she argues, is complex and multi-pronged (more of which later).
As for what is being done? “Casting teams will run a LexisNexis [paid for] background search to scour mentions of a person worldwide, which could pick up things missed via Google,” she says, remembering the search throwing up a mugshot for a potential cast member, meaning they weren’t chosen for filming.
Everyone that appears on a reality show will, she says, have been passed by a psychologist, with teams spending time with a contestant’s friends, family and even work colleagues to gauge their true character. “Meeting the people in their life normally gives indicators as to whether there’s anything going on, any red flags,” Jamie adds.
She says a DBS (or criminal record) check is also generally done, but that the search might not be as helpful as you’d first think. “Unless you’ve been arrested and convicted, [allegations] won't show up,” she warns. “If the charges were dropped or the investigation was inconclusive, it wouldn’t show. TV casting just doesn’t have the remit to do a police level background check.”
Imperfect process
And this is just one issue production companies face when weeding out problematic would-be participants. Another being that they’re at the mercy of social media platforms, which can change the way a user can search for someone’s past posts, without warning.
Jamie suggests these changes in search functionality may have been to blame for the historic posts on X from 2023 Big Brother contestant Trish Balusa, containing racist and homophobic language, not being picked up.
Then there are the aforementioned character references that — despite initially flagging them as examples of production companies’ due diligence — Jamie admits aren’t failsafe: “Nobody’s going to pull you aside and say ‘by the way, he’s abusive.’”
Another vulnerability speaks to universal workplace gripes: not enough time; not enough money. “Channels don’t give enough money to production companies who in turn hire casting teams, so people are guilty of cutting corners or not hiring enough people to do background checks.”
“Every production company should outsource their social media checking [to a specialist company], and a number of them don’t,” she says, adding: “I do think that should be a non-negotiable.”
Without it, Jamie continues: “You are relying on the individual, usually someone lower down, to catch it.”
“There’s a lot of anxiety about being the person that misses something,” she confides. These important (but ultimately boring) jobs are also passed down the seniority ranks. “A lot of pressure is put on junior people to carry out these background checks, which are very tedious…People sometimes rush them, which is a huge issue.
“It’s maybe one of them most important parts of casting, yet I think if you get lumped with it, it’s a nightmare, and also a lot of pressure that I don’t think one person should have.”
Dangerous influence?
Whatever the reasons why people who exhibit these problematic behaviours keep falling through the casting cracks, experts in women’s rights and relational health have concerns.
“Producers must recognise the repercussions of giving [alleged] perpetrators a platform [and the effect this] has on societal attitudes towards domestic abuse,” says Farah Nazeer, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid. “Producers have a responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of everyone on their sets.”
Jamie, broadly, agrees. “Personally, I think if something comes to light, [the contestant] should be removed from the show. Problem is, you can never really say the true reason and [it] ends up creating more questions than answers. It’s happened many a time on Big Brother where someone has ‘walked’ but quite often they’ve been asked to leave.”
As to whether there's any value in making an example of someone’s behaviour, keeping them on the show to spark discussion and exemplify the possibility for change?
“No,” says Nazeer. “These behaviours shouldn’t be on our screens, and when demonstrated, shows must take swift action to remove [the participant] to send a strong signal that these behaviours will not be tolerated.”
If such behaviour does make the cut, Dr Sarah Davies, Chartered Integrative Counselling Psychologist and author of How to Leave a Narcissist ... For Good calls for careful storytelling.
“It’s crucial that when toxic behaviours play out, they’re named and responded to appropriately...Domestic violence tends to escalate, so we need to see a strong message about what is and isn’t acceptable. Seeing something like that on TV can help give viewers the courage to speak up or leave an abusive relationship,” she says.
She also calls for more education about toxic behaviours, like the signs and cycles of abuse (tension building up; outburst; reconciliation with an apology and promises to never repeat the behaviour), advice for viewers who might find themselves in a similar situation —and equal discussion about what healthy behaviours in relationships and dating look like, too.
Detoxifying dating shows: the digested take
As defining healthy masculinity continues to dominate the discourse — and manosphere figureheads loom large online — it’s vital those in more regulated spaces take their responsibilities seriously.
That they draw a clear line between someone being ‘masculine’ or ‘passionate’ and displaying aggressive or abusive behaviours, and don’t allow a creeping normalisation of toxic or abusive behaviours to colour viewers’ — especially younger ones’ — expectations of relationships.
As Jamie says, you can’t catch everything before something goes to air. But properly investing in background checks would help mitigate the chances of those with allegations of abuse in their history, or problematic behaviours in their present, being cast.
Maybe that could finally put an end to singles walking down the aisle into the arms of someone who is potentially dangerous — and the millions watching thinking it’s normal to do the same.
Netflix and Channel 9 did not immediately respond to requests for comment
If you or someone you love is experiencing abuse, reach out to Woman's Aid
*Not their real name
Isabella is a freelance journalist who has written on young women's issues, entertainment, TV and film, South Asian representation, mental health, dating and so much more. She has bylines in ELLE, Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping, Prima, Digital Spy, Women's Health, and Harper's Bazaar, and was named 30 Under 30 by MediaWeek, PPA and We Are The City. She was also shortlisted for Workplace Hero at the Investing In Ethnicity Awards and Hero of the Year at the European Diversity Awards. Follow Isabella on Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn.
