No.

IMO, in order from best to last:

1) A happy, healthy marriage;

2) Being single, no children, with means

3) Being single, with children, with means

tied for last place and far below the others: being single with children with no means and being in a bad marriage.

No, would not be interested in that social experiment. OTOH, I knew when I met DH he was the one.

I cannot imagine being desperate enough to marry under those circumstances. It's true that some cultures still arrange marriages which can be successful, but imho there's nothing wrong with being single. If you are unhappy single, you will probably be unhappy married.

The thought of it is nauseating to me! I saw a couple on some talk show the other day that was on that show. The poor girl was upset when she first saw the man because really, he was not very attractive and she was gorgeous. I know looks aren't everything but he was really not attractive to me in the least bit, had these big old moles all over his face (HA!). But they are happy together now and she thinks he's handsome now but she admitted she was not attracted to him at first sight.

No way! My first marriage lasted 8 years. I have known my husband for 31 years & have been happily married for 25 years, we started out as friends.

I know that many arranged marriages have worked well, but usually they are arranged by people who personally *know* the partners-to-be or at least the entire family background of each partner. There is truth to the maxim that you marry 'the whole family'.

Are there really so many people still trying to find "the right one" in their thirties? What are their expectations? Do the women expect to have children? (Pregnancies past age 38 are treated with extra precautions by the medics. First pregnancies may be more difficult to achieve with or without expensive interventions.)

Unhappy being single? "Being married" isn't a cure.

I watched the original show and have a different take on it than arkansas_girl. True, Jamie was immediately upset by Doug not looking like she had expected or hoped for. While she is attractive, I think she is a far cry from "gorgeous" and it came out in later episodes that she came with her own baggage. True, Doug has three obvious facial moles that look like they probably can't be removed but has a wonderful personality and treats her like a queen. They were "married" over a month before they even kissed and even longer yet before consummating the marriage. What they now have is a true love that developed after they got to know each other in a most unconventional way. To each his own without my interjecting criticism about superficial attributes.

Also, the couples are matched by a team of experts in several fields so there is some degree of reason as to whom they are paired with. Would I do it? No, but I find it to be an interesting social experiment for those who choose that avenue.

No, I wouldn't. But, I see the appeal in this age of reality television. I enjoyed the first season and found it interesting that Courtney was so young. I think the second season has most near or above thirty. This makes sense to me. I can see a woman who is thirty (or man) and things just never seem to work out in the relationship department wanting to give this a try.

In the first season, the idea of getting married at first sight was a surprise. I guess these couples knew what they were getting into. Some might like the idea of "fame" and being on TV.

Jamie was honest. The first thing everyone does when they meet someone is to have an opinion about how they look. Physical attraction is there or it's not. Jamie was able to get past this and fall in love with Doug. And, when she was upset with Doug for lying about smoking, I felt that she that she should have owned up to being a nag.

I don't think I would, but then again............. if I was in my 30's living in TODAY's time I might just have to. It seems all there is now is internet dating which really stinks!!! Too many choices make for not getting anyone special. Just like trying to find a job, its all on the internet and they have 1000's of choices just going by what a person writes. We don't stand a chance if your not gifted with words.

I too, agree, that an unhappy person who is single, will still be unhappy if they marry. One cannot expect a marriage to make them happy, if they weren't already happy with their lives. But if you are a happy person about all the other aspects of your life, with the exception of not having a partner to share your life with, then I would consider you to be a happy person who is only unhappy with being single. That is totally different IMHO than a really unhappy person, who also happens to be single.

This show is an interesting concept, since the couples can't see any photos ahead of time, and physical attraction is an important component to consider. However, as jae and ellendi pointed out, last season's show did demonstrate that once a strong emotional connection builds between two people, even with no initial attraction (at least on one side) the amount of physical attraction either grew, or simply became less important. I did hear Jamie say that Doug had a great body, so she at least had an attraction there. She might not find his face as attractive as she had hoped for, but she's obviously decided his average face, great body and wonderful character traits, make a good husband! It'll be interesting to see how the 'experts' do as matchmakers this season!

What I think is interesting is that they're pairing people based on their values, expectations, and lifestyle, rather than appearance, career and social status. Sort of the opposite of what most people do. And two out of three successful pairings is a pretty good record. Of course, this is TV, so they're only pairing fairly good looking people. Let's see them try a chubby, pasty faced guy with a receding hairline and a baby-haired girl with a big nose, squat figure and glasses--who match well on paper with people outside of their "numbers". :) See how much looks matter then....

plllog makes a good point. Not only do the contestants have to be fairly photogenic, they have to be able to talk freely and be relaxed in front of a camera.

I haven't seen this show. Are they shooting more for entertaining TV or high success rate with their pairings? And no, I doubt it would be something I would consider doing. But then, I have been married a long time.

No I personally would not. I also agree being married, no matter who the partner is, is no guarantee of happiness. You have to be happy/accepting and honest with yourself before you can expect to find happiness with anyone else. They won't magically fix you.

Not a chance. You can't pair people by comparing questionnaires.
Love just doesn't work that way.

I've been thinking about the question (which I didn't answer directly) since it was posted: I had a lot of "well under those circumstances" blather in my head to cut away. Ultimately, my answer is no because this is a legal and binding marriage and the only way out is divorce. --Did you notice that this is happening in New York which has some of the more stringent requirements for divorce?--

OTOH, they use much more than questionnaires to pair people. They have four relationship experts who also talk to the prospects, etc., and because it's a show, the production company has to do extended background and psychological checks, even though they don't talk about these. Given that there's so much blind luck involved in finding someone compatible, I think I might have enlisted all that expertise for something like engaged at first sight when I was younger. OTOH, of the six pairs they've introduced on TV so far, they're all fairly conventional people, without strong religious beliefs, quirky personalities, dependent children (though there is a semi-dependent niece in the new crop), unusual jobs, etc.

In other words, they're matching up people who on many metrics are mix-and-match anyway. The differences and compatibilities they're showing are about things like being family oriented vs. partyers. That's important, too, but making good matches must be a lot easier when they start with a homogenous group of fairly good looking, fairly easy going, fairly personable, firmly middle class, normal people.

I agree Plllog, but at the same time some odd things came out with Vaughn and Monet.

The first bride who has walked up the aisle this season is clearly not physically attracted to her bridegroom and also mentioned she finds his accent annoying. But perhaps like last season's Doug, if he has a very loving, sweet, personality and she finds they have much in common, she might come around and end up falling in love, just as Jamie did last season...or not.

plllog, I agree that a more logical concept for the show might have been 'Engaged at First Sight' because at least each of them would have had the help of 'experts' to find someone who was deemed a very suitable match, minus the legality of marriage. But maybe the show thought that would be too much like 'The Bachelor' and wouldn't draw enough viewers. As well, they may have felt that the couples wouldn't try as hard to work on their relationship if they were merely engaged, as they would really only have to hand back the ring and say 'I'm outta here!' lol!

.

Yahoo had a short video of the bride and her groom. She said that she didn't like his accent at all, and was not attracted. The video ended without us knowing whether she said I do, or not. Did she marry him?

What happens if there is a divorce, what is the division of their assets and belongings? That could get sketchy.

Ravencajun, there was a divorce in the first year's show. The couple hadn't merged thoroughly, and were only together about a month and a half, so I'm guessing it was just one of those walk away with what you brought situations. They may also have them sign pre-nups off camera. The harder part would be if this weren't "an experiment" and a TV show where they're told they have to decide to stay together or split at the end of the show's timeline. I always wondered what that meant, and it may be that the show pays for the divorce if they decide to split at that time, or something like that. After that, it's like any divorce. :)

Pickyshopper, for a TV show, I agree with you 100%. There's a certain amount of peril in being legally wed in a state where divorces take time. Peril makes for great drama. In answering, "So would YOU have ever considered being married at first sight?"my answer is no, but I might have considered being engaged and committing to a goal of marriage. What I definitely would not have ever done is do it on TV! My cultural underpinnings take engagements very seriously, and marriages even more so. I couldn't go into a marriage with the idea that if it just doesn't work out we'll decide to divorce in six weeks. This is also why Jewish couples usually have the signing of the marriage contract (which is, essentially, a symbolic pre-nup, but some people make it their actual pre-nups) right before the wedding. It has as much weight as a marriage, and is as hard to undo, so they wait until they're really sure they're going through with it. :)