Married At First Sight is pulling no punches 2025, with a twist so shocking that it’s already being described by insiders as ‘sickening’, ‘sadistic’ and ‘f**ked-up’.
In a move designed to test the strength of the couples’ relationships, producers introduced a controversial task called ‘Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side?’ — and it’s set to leave viewers stunned.
The twist saw the participants surprised with an envelope that delivered a jaw-dropping choice: stay committed to their current spouse or meet another potential match who’d been scientifically hand-picked by the experts as a ‘back-up option’.
This diabolical swerve has been kept top-secret – until today.
But one outraged insider wanted the story out there, telling me: ‘Producers had lined up potential matches for everyone – essentially a plan B.
‘The participants were asked if they wanted to meet their ‘back-up’… It was f**ked, because even the happy couples were strongly encouraged to “explore their options”.
‘This twist ruined marriages. Some of them ended things right then and there. It was heartbreaking to see. They’ve totally given up on this being about love stories.’
MAFS is pulling no punches 2025, with a twist so shocking that it’s already being described by insiders as ‘sickening’, ‘sadistic’ and ‘f**ked’. (Pictured: MAFS expert Alessandra Rampolla)
In a move designed to test the strength of the couples’ relationships, producers introduced a controversial task called ‘Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side?’
The task was introduced in the early hours of the morning, with couples separated and handed envelopes containing the indecent proposal.
They were given no indication of what their partner’s choice might be, leaving them to make the decision entirely on their own.
‘Once they made their decision, they had no idea if their partner had said yes or no,’ the insider reveals.
‘It created chaos. The whole thing was designed to rattle them, and it worked. Some people said no without hesitation, while others decided to meet their back-up and instantly regretted it.’
The source adds: ‘Even the ones who didn’t regret it caused massive trust issues with their original partner. It really tested who was genuinely committed to the experiment and who was willing to risk it all.’
Unsurprisingly, the twist caused turmoil within the group, with couples divided and trust shattered.
According to insiders, multiple participants walked out of the experiment after the task, unable to repair the damage.
The twist, which was kept under wraps until now, saw the participants surprised with an envelope that delivered a jaw-dropping choice: stay committed to their current partner or meet another potential match who had been hand-picked by the experts as a ‘back-up option’
Speaking about the twist, expert John Aiken (left) defended the decision, telling Daily Mail Australia it was designed to push participants out of their comfort zones
‘Some people felt betrayed just knowing their partner had even been given a backup option,’ one source tells me.
‘And for those who chose to meet their back-up, it created tension not just within their relationships, but in the group dynamic. It was like a grenade went off.’
While the task left many couples questioning their connection, some were reportedly strengthened by it, using the challenge to reaffirm their commitment.
‘A few participants came out of it stronger, but for most of them it was catastrophic. This twist will go down in MAFS history,’ my source adds.
Speaking about the twist, relationship expert John Aiken defended the decision, telling me it was designed to push participants out of their comfort zones.
‘At Married At First Sight, we’re always looking for ways to challenge the participants and see how deep their commitment runs,’ he says.
‘This task was about forcing them to confront the idea of temptation and whether they truly believe in the match they’ve been given.’
Sexologist Alessandra Rampolla echoed his sentiments, adding: ‘It’s always fascinating to see how people react when faced with difficult choices.
‘The task wasn’t about breaking couples apart – it was about seeing who was willing to fight for their relationship and who wasn’t.’
