And if so, are you willing to admit it in this forum?

Did watching it make you feel all dirty and ashamed to be a member of the same species as the people involved in making the show?

And how does crap like this get on television?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Answers

I did (accidentally!) watch just the part where he actually chose the woman. I smell a rat. I believe that he actually intended to marry her. To be shallow, she was not the prettiest, though she could not have been more vapid than one of the brunettes. I suspect they intended to marry, and this was a way of sucking some money out of the networks. I can't decide which is harder to believe: a man who's decent looking and rich (as he purportedly was) like that can't get a date , or that he is willing to get married on national tv (actually maybe WHY he can't find a date), or that a woman would humiliate herself in that manner. but actually, I can sort of believe all of these things. I guess they figure they make some bucks, get it annulled, and everyone is happy. of course, this is the natural extension to just giving away money and airing your marital problems on tv. whatever. I watch my share of junk but I have my limits.

I noticed it was on opposite Angel, will and Grace, Dharma, etc...all decent shows with female followings, I guess you could say. bad night for fox, right?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I suppose the whole thing could be a fake, but I kind of doubt it. If it was fake, I'm sure the other finalists weren't in on it, because they were all shaking like leaves at the end. Even the one who got picked looked really shaky, although that could just be the excitement of getting married, and the nervousness of being on TV.

There are any number of explanations as to why women would participate in such a contest, particularly the decline in the sanctity of marriage in our society (after all, if it doesn't work, you can just get a divorce/annulment), and the desire many people have for fame, even at the price of humiliation (just look at the daytime talk and court shows).

Throughout much of human history, marriages for financial or political reasons have been the norm, and still are in many parts of the world. However, I would hope that women in _our_ society would seek greater fulfillment from marriage given the high degree of freedom and autonomy they enjoy in our society.

Also, I have no problem believing that Mr. Multi-Millionaire couldn't find anyone to marry him in real life, because anyone who would participate in such a horrifying event as this contest is obviously a total jerk.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

A friend and I watched the show with a depraved sense of amusement. It will be interesting to see how their marriage really turns out. I think they have a 30 day cooling off period or something like that where they can unilaterally terminate the marriage.

I also have the feeling that the show was rigged to some extent. At a minimum, Mr. Multi-Millionaire probably had access to all of the candidates' questionaires and photos way beforehand.

The way they profiled Mr. Multi-Millionaire at the end was also kind of dubious. It sounded almost like an infomercial for the guy. I was waiting for the 1-800 # to buy the guy's books and lecture tapes on how to become rich through real estate with no money down! Maybe he was a Tom Vu graduate.

Thank heavens that they limited the use of "Is that your final answer?" That joke is becoming way too tired... On the other hand, the show should have been more like its namesake. They should have given the contestants lifelines for the multiple choice questions. Some of them could have used the help. Also, there should have been different levels of Mr. Millionaires to marry -- Do you want to stop now and marry the millionaire or go on for the multi-millionaire?

What's next? Who wants to marry an online diarist? :-) :-)

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

I'm not sure why people found the show offensive (as opposed to silly)... After all, it was nothing but evolutionary biology reduced to a Fox special... Those with wealth and power can choose from among those with youth and beauty... It's cruel, but it's just natural selection. And, like MTV's much-lamented "Singled Out", it makes an evolutionary point. Of course it's about "shallow" things-- "shallow" in our hyper-moralizing over-pop-pyschologized sense... But life about "shallow" (but quite practical) things: the exchange of youth and beauty (i.e., sex) for wealth and status. People may those with moral or 'spiritual' qualities, but they don't want to have them in bed or on their arms at parties...

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

That's a pretty dismal view of human nature, Lohr, and if those are the standards that you use to choose a mate, then I pity you. Even if you adhere to the simplistic view that human sexuality is governed by purely Darwinian values, you must consider that morals and values are just as important to the fitness of our species as youth, beauty, power or wealth.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

There has been an uproar in recent times about the sanctity of the institution of marriage being degraded by same-sex couples.

It's disturbing that the presiding judge on "Who Wants to Marry..." would willingly perform that ceremony, but wouldn't for a loving gay couple.

Something's quite wrong with this picture.

r a n d o m l i f e

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

So let me get this straight. The women participated due to "the decline in the sanctity of marriage in our society" and "the desire many people have for fame, even at the price of humiliation." On the other hand the guy's participation indicates he "is obviously a total jerk."

Is this irony intentional?

As for your question on how crap like this gets on television, the answer is simple. People watch it.

I didn't.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

What irony are you referring to, Dave?

Do you take objection to the fact that I assign different motives to the man and the women involved in this contest?

I think that doing so is appropriate, as the male and female participants had very different consequences as a result of their participation. The man knew he would be married to a woman of his choosing. He was able to judge the contestants on the basis of their appearances and personalities, but the women did not have the opportunity to judge him on anything other than his wealth.

I think that participation in this event by all parties is vulgar and offensive, however, I am more offended by the actions of the man involved for assuming a position of power nobody really deserves.

If it were a wealthy woman taking her pick from 50 young men, it would be just as bad. However, in this case, the power was in the guy's hands.

Finally, "because people will watch it" doesn't mean that stuff will end up on television. For years, death penalty opponents have tried to get executions televised, to no avail. People would certainly watch it, but it still hasn't happened.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Jen said: ********* I think that participation in this event by all parties is vulgar and offensive, however, I am more offended by the actions of the man involved for assuming a position of power nobody really deserves.

If it were a wealthy woman taking her pick from 50 young men, it would be just as bad. However, in this case, the power was in the guy's hands. *********

Assuming a position of power nobody really deserves? All this talk of "power misuse" smacks of "gender abuse terminology misuse."

You obviously didn't agree with Lohr's main point, which was:

"people are naturally shallow and selfish and therefore seeing this show isn't much of a surprise."

******* That's a pretty dismal view of human nature, Lohr, and if those are the standards that you use to choose a mate, then I pity you. *******

There was no real good reason to take such a cheap shot at Lohr for expressing his point. Maybe you're angry.

Anyways, just to show that this is not an "Anti-Jen Wade's Opinions post", I have to say that:

******* There are any number of explanations as to why women would participate in such a contest, particularly the decline in the sanctity of marriage in our society (after all, if it doesn't work, you can just get a divorce/annulment), and the desire many people have for fame, even at the price of humiliation (just look at the daytime talk and court shows). *******

is a very wise conclusion.

Here's a simple solution to easing your mind from an apparently large amount of personal angst: Take your TV and throw it in the nearest dumpster.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I found it offensive for the reason you mention last. (um crap: that is crap TV, of which there is way too much-- I'll take well-written violence & sex any day of the week over this shit)

And a thought: What would be the counterpoint theme for a single woman and many men in the same format? Is there one?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Scary thing: The groom was a native San Diego reporter who did a weekly segment called "Bif and Skippy", where he and another guy, Larry Himmel, would paint their noses with zinc and talk in really sloshy voices that sounded like stroke victims. They were sort of a naive Beavis and Butthead, except with no redeeming value whatsoever, not even a Woody fairy or BurgerWorld. They played two roomates seeing the sights and sounds of San Diego, while making fools of themselves for entertainment purposes. It was sort of before my time, but the local news channel did a thing on it...and as a San Diegan, I have nativist tendencies!

Then Bif, the better half, went off and made a lot of money on Real Estate, and now I guess he's living happily ever after...

I didn't see the show, but it was more because I had a lab report on restriction enzyme gene mapping due, and an American History DBQ to write, rather than any moral objection to its content. Actually, I'm relatively fine with it as long as they have another show featuring a woman culling the man from a lot of contestants. Equal opportunity and the like, you know...

Actually, I'm impressed from what I've heard; despite the fact that the bride "looks like the grandma from 'There's Something About Mary'," she's also a Gulf War vet and a nurse. That takes some grit, I'm sure.

I'm giving them about nine months. Can you imagine what a monstrosity the marriage would become if they had kids? "Where did I come from, Mommy?"

"Well, your father had just grown tired of stalking Angelina Jolie when he worked out a deal with the Fox network to compete against Angel and other high quality programs in order to find himself a bride, and since I have such well-turned calves, and because I'm a Gulf War Veteran, your father decided to pick me. At the time, I felt like retching, but then we had you and it was pretty good because now I have a whole host of servants to choose from in my forthcoming affairs..."

And don't tell me you've never watched Beavis and Butthead. Everybody has watched it at least once in his or her life. Everybody.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

The irony is that your sympathetic views could equally be applied to the man. Maybe he did it due to the "decline in the sanctity of marriage in our society" and "the desire many people have for fame, even at the price of humiliation." He's getting married too, and he's getting famous as well.

On the other hand your less sympathetic view could equally be applied to the females. Maybe they're "total jerks" for marrying a guy for his money. Gold diggers are generally frowned upon in our society, are they not?

As for the issue of televised death sentences your question was "how does crap like this get on television." I don't think an execution is anything like this. For example, it would probably be difficult to sell ad time.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Jenn says: "However, I would hope that women in _our_ society would seek greater fulfillment from marriage given the high degree of freedom and autonomy they enjoy in our society."

Considering the failure rate of both relationships and marriages, that were made supposedly (for love) perhaps marrying for other reasons considered ignoble isn't such a bad idea.

And I'm usually the first to admit I objectify women but for some reason, this show annoyed me. I haven't really pinned it down yet, except for the poor entertainment value. (I only watched the last 2 minutes or so)

And maybe that's all it is. I'm just annoyed that some producer, some writer thought this project was worthwhile.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Ok, first to reply to Ed's comments:

*Assuming a position of power nobody really deserves? All this talk of "power misuse" smacks of "gender abuse terminology misuse."*

I'm not following you here...I'm not familiar with "gender abuse terminology," so if I'm using it at all, I can assure you that it's purely a coincidence.

My objection didn't have to do with gender, but rather due to the inequitable nature of the selection process. Your life partner should be someone with whom you have an equitable relationship, not someone you pick off a grocery-store shelf and then pay for.

And yes, Lohr's comments did make me angry. I was offended by his blanket statement that "people" (of which I am one) choose mates on the basis of wealth, status, power, or beauty, rather than kindness or morality. I also firmly believe that excluding those human qualities from consideration in choosing a partner is a strong predictor of future unhappiness in a relationship, which is what motivated my sincere expression of pity.

And I don't think dumping my TV would do anything to assuage my anger. TV didn't create the notion that it is appropriate to marry someone solely on the basis of his wealth or of her ability to walk around in a skimpy outfit and answer a few questions, it merely reflects what some in our society already believe.

And to Dave:

What makes you think my views towards the women who participated are "sympathetic?" I think they're a bunch of idiots! Is being an idiot better than being a jerk? I don't know...Yes, I listed some reasons why women would participate in the show, but I thought it was pretty obvious that they were all horrible reasons.

As for the prospect of selling ads during executions, is that an acceptable standard for what is appropriate to show on network television: "if we can sell ads for it, it's OK to show, but if we can't, then it's not appropriate"?

If this is the case, what basis do we have for appointing a bunch of marketing executives to be our moral leaders?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

"what basis do we have for appointing a bunch of marketing executives to be our moral leaders? "

The USA is a unapologetically capitalistic country. NPR had a professor on that pointed out Y2K was the first apocalypse that could be avoided by consuming more (in this case, spending money on programmers).

Commercial TV shows make all their money from commercials. Jerry Springer and clones will be on the air for a long time to come because they give good return on investment.

While various factions of the US populace will argue which actions are moral (abortion, white lies, pre-marital sex), marketing executives have established a firm standard. Any show that they can sell commercial time to without their clients getting boycotted is a good show.

That being said I only watched the show during commercials on Angel. But that glimpse was enough.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

By the way, you can follow links to 3 different newspaper articles on the show by going to http://www.obscurestore.com/

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

To Jen:

Loved every comment you made to my post. About the TV comment, though: It was purely tongue-in-jowl - light sarcasm :)

I am interested in a statement that you made about it, however. You seem to be saying that Television is as much a device of empowerment as much as it is a device of debasement. There is one difference however - you can't debate with a plate of glass. Therefore, if you see something you don't agree with (such as this show) you are forced to take other outlets for discussion.

In this way, was this show a pro-active way of challenging societal standards? Or is it simply a subtle brainwashing of our less self-examined citizens? Was this show "good" even though it was so "bad"? What's essential for us to turn this show into an effective criticism of our society?

Just a few questions.

To GlenS:

****

While various factions of the US populace will argue which actions are moral (abortion, white lies, pre-marital sex), marketing executives have established a firm standard. Any show that they can sell commercial time to without their clients getting boycotted is a good show.

*****

Morality? You make a very bold statement here - paralleling morality with this show. (I don't disagree, but I think it's very bold.) Why bold? Because there is a flip side to this nefarious coin we're examining - shows are released with an analysis of how the majority of the watching populace will respond. Does this say something about the "morality" of the majority?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

hmm, I'm not sure if I ever met any women looking for kindness and morality. (at least not ones not under some delusion of cult or religious motivation)

Because some aspect of wealth, status, power, or beauty always seem to figure into the equation (along with possibly kindness and morality or some other not so shallow trait).

In other words kindness and morality are pretty much worthless on their own.

So maybe people don't have to be as base in their choices as this show would have it, but it's hard to say if it's really worth throwing stones at, if very few people really get married on totally wholesome aspects anyway.

There are (most likely bitter) kind and moral losers everywhere. The phrase, "nice guys finish last" probably originated from this consequence. No one informed them (mom, dad, females) that when good non-superficial qualities are trumpeted by women wanting to meet "nice" men, that these women also have an additional agenda and are maybe only a few squares away from the women they purport to not be like.

I'm not sure that I feel enthused about my viewpoint, but it makes a good argument.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I don't know, Cory...I think the fact that almost all people end up getting married eventually is a testament to the fact that people really do pick their mates for all sorts of reasons.

I would agree with you that "superficial" characteristics do enter into the equation for most people. But I don't necessarily think that kindness and morality on their own are any more "useless" than beauty and power on their own. I agree with you that most women probably wouldn't want husbands who are kind and moral, but who are ugly losers, but I also think that most women would also eschew marriage to a good- looking rich guy who, for example, liked to beat the crap out of you on a regular basis.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

What do you think about gays getting married?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I guess I'm one of the few who didn't watch it. My daughter had two friends join us for dinner tonight and the conversation at one point touched on that program. Out of six people around the dinner table, my wife and I were the only ones who had not watched it. Those who had watched it had scathingly negative opinions about the show, but they all had watched it as had (apparently) most of their friends and it was *the* hot topic of conversation at their school. That's why the program was broadcast: Fox got huge ratings and tons of publicity and had people talking about it. (Notice what a hot topic it had been on this forum.)

Prediction: somebody will rip off the idea and broadcast some kind of a knock-off version; Fox will broadcast additional installments of this program; Fox will run follow-up broadcasts (the marriage at six months, the marriage at one year, etc.) This will continue until the ratings fall off enough that it no longer pays to produce these shows.

Remember The Dating Game? And The Newlywed Game? (And endless sleasy variations of questions about where the couple enjoyed "making whoopie") And don't forget Divorce Court! Those programs were from the relatively restrained and (sort of) tastelful past. Now think about the sleasy variations that show up on cable channels like MTV.

Additional prediction: at some point -- maybe not in this cycle of programs, it might take until the next time around -- the programs will include nudity and at least a touch of foreplay (if not full consumation) on cable channels... or perhaps on internet broadcasting... in fact, now that I think about it, I am sure that somebody will come up with some variation on that to attract attention and eyeballs to their new internet video broadcasts, not this year, but in another two or three years...(and many of you will watch!)

Jim

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

In answer to Dave's question, I think gays should be allowed to get legally married.

Are you leading up to something here?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

It just struck me that the righteous indignation expressed regarding this show sounded very similar to that expressed by those against gay marriages (sanctity of marriage and moral decay, etc, etc.)

The participants in this show were all informed, consenting adults. It is often the case that informed, consenting adults wish to engage in behavior we do not necessarily want to see.

So don't watch.

This show unquestionably fell well within the moral guidelines television operates under. I can't see a thing wrong with airing it, no matter how repulsive I personally found it.

Actually, now that I think about it, I didn't really think the concept was all that repulsive until I saw that final kiss on the news. Could he possibly have looked more hungry?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

Stupid Trivia!

Rick Rockwel, the groom, had a brief acting stint. Which included: Return of the Killer Tomatoes! Killer Tomatoes Strike Back Killer Tomatoes Eat France!

So, if you wonder what kind of Multi-Millionaire needs a date...

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

The smartest thing I've seen or heard on the program (which I and my boyfriend watched in full, in complete horror and disgust but also with the incredible glee with which I watch the Miss America Pageant and the Oscars) is the commentary in Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/02/16/multimillionaire/

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2000

I just read that Article. It's pretty funny.

I think if they have another show they should consider a round-robin mud wrestling competition and perhaps a gymnastics competition, with maximum points awarded for the all important ankles-to-ears maneuver. ;-) (Oooh, that was bad!)

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2000

I was thinking today about who exploited whom. The woman used something she had, let's call it beauty, to get what she wanted, namely wealth. The man used something he had, wealth, to get what he wanted, beauty.

I read a few things in this morning's paper that added a lot of insight. First, on their honeymoon cruise, the newlyweds are in seperate bedrooms. The conclusion I take away from this is that they're not really married, that the whole thing was merely a spectacle for the TV cameras, and they will now see if things click the "old fashioned" way.

In addition, it seems this whole show was the brainchild of the guy who thought up "When Animals Attack" and those other real-life shows. Suddenly the answer to who exploited whom was crystal clear. Both the man and the woman were exploited by Fox TV and their audience.

I hope things work out for the newlyweds.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

Hey, I just saw this story on the morning news. Looks like maybe my example of the rich guy who'd beat the shit out of you may have been more prescient than I realized.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

Well, if he did that show for fame/publicity, he's getting what he asked for. Though maybe not what he expected.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

As far as I'm concerned the guy did it for an appearance fee, although that is admittedly just an assumption.

Do I get any prescience points for my use of the phrase "When Animals Attack"?

Why are they scrapping the rebroadcast? You'd think this would be all the better, as far as Fox is concerned, wouldn't you?

One thing I'd been asking myself is, why didn't they let the brides see what the groom looked like ahead of time? As you pointed out above, it is most troubling. (Although you blamed it on the groom, instead of Fox Television.) It just casts the potential brides in a bad light, that they're willing to marry this guy just for his money, sight unseen. My conclusion was that this was a calculated move by Fox Television, designed to increase the show's freak show value.

Now they suddenly develop a conscience? Hypocrites.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

It turns out wonder boy spends a lot of time in Vancouver, BC. (Where I live.) Here's another interesting article:
Word of warning for the bride.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

So according to this article http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0218b.htm most of the 50 contestants on the show did NOT take the "marry a multi-millionaire" thing very seriously. In fact, half of them had boyfriends at home. Most of them did it for the TV exposure, as a joke, in response to solicitations from Fox or at the encouragement of their agents or managers, and/or for the all-expenses-paid week's vacation in Las Vegas.

In fact, despite Fox's claim that "over 1,000 applicants" had vied for the 50 contestant slots, "they had a hard time finding girls," said Lora Manka, one of the 50. She goes on: "I talked to women who'd actually been solicited by Fox, who saw them on their own personal Web pages and e-mailed them, asking them to enter." [Another contestant] said someone from Fox repeatedly recruited her to apply. Manka herself and a friend "decided as a last-minute lark to submit pictures of themselves, in response to an ad they'd seen soliciting contestants. The entry deadline was just days away and they didn't expect to hear back. But both got calls to fly to Las Vegas the very next week."

So you have 50 women who mostly saw the whole thing as a show biz joke, and 1 lone guy who most probably participated to further his career as a motivational speaker/stand-up comedian and who has a record of abusing and threatening his ex-girlfriend. Still, I have to say: I'm rather sad the show isn't going to air again this week. I really wanted to watch again, and have friends who missed it the first time watch, knowing what we know now. (Also, I wanted to see that red-headed finalist again, the one the very smart and funny Salon.com commentary http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/02/16/multimillionaire/ described as being "bitten on the ass" by Shame.)

As a masterpiece of camp, and as a semiotic skein, "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?" was a thing of beauty, and, thanks to the order of protection against the Multi-millionaire by his ex and Fox's subsequent (and I'm sure reluctant decision), ephemeral. Isn't that what the Romantics said about beauty?

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

I'm with you 100% on the masterpiece of camp comment.

They supposedly had a pool of over 100 applicants to be the multi-millionaire, and this guy was the best of the lot. I loved Fox's response to the allegation that this guy was pretty much a con man. It amounted to, "if he's a con man, he sure had us fooled." Heh. Beautiful.

I just hope the "winning" bride didn't take the whole thing too seriously, because apparently nobody else did.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2000

Do think marriage is a artificial construct? It's certainly a long tradition, but I wonder if too much adherence to specific "rules" is really conducive to a good relationship.

Afterall, it might be argued that two people living in separate houses, apartments, (duplex) might have a better relationship than the average marriage. (or it might not, I don't know)

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Marriage is an artificial construct... It's about passing property and name within a given bloodline. If the two people like each other, that's fine, but it's not the point. And *that* was the story of marriage until the last century or so...

Having always been reasonably kind but having always disdained the word 'morality" with its overtones of religion and the loathed 'spirituality', I still believe that here in the quotidian world, Angelina Jolie will go much farther than Mother Teresa.

I will likely enough never marry. I wouldn't settle for less than an alpha; no alpha girl will settle for me.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Well, the shit hath hitteth the fan.

Taken from msnbc: "Darva Conger, the winner of Fox's controversial but wildly popular "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?" game show, apparently doesn't want to marry a multimillionaire. Back from an unromantic honeymoon, Conger says she's likely to seek an annulment of her two-week marriage to Rick Rockwell."

Well. So this tale of naive hedonism does have a moral after all.

"If you are going to marry purely for money, don't broadcast it on live television. Or taped."

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

you know I saw bits and pieces of her interview today, and I began to almost feel sorry for her, but then I thought, really, you had to know what you were getting into. What was the premise of the show? Why even knowing the name of the show should be all the clue she needed.

Also, I wonder, if this Rick Rockwell guy turned out to be a good catch, (in her mind) would she have reacted the same.

She gave the excuse that she never intended to follow through with someone she didn't know regardless.

Well, all I can say is, bah humbug. She wasn't even drunk or in vegas for this mistake. (well i don't think she was drunk anyway) So, anyway, crying and pretending to have values from the start doesn't seem to cut it.

yeah, Jen you can always get married while you're in Vegas. That's something no one suggested yet.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

yeah, Jen you can always get married while you're in Vegas. That's something no one suggested yet.

Just don't let me get married in Vegas.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2000

well i do excatly i can become a multi-millionaire and i'am men.

-- Anonymous, October 15, 2001