• MAFS expert Dr Pani Farvid is a senior lecturer in psychology at AUT.
So far so good! We have Luke and Lacey who have hit it off in a cute and comedic fashion.
Dom is totally smitten with Claire (who got over his height pretty quickly, pegging him as just the loveliest man ever).
Vicky wants to take it slow with Andrew. But Brett and Angel were so happy with each other, they just couldn't stop smiling.
Two more weddings to go. As we wait to meet the final couples tonight, it's timely to consider how this thing, "the couple", structures our daily lives.
Not only is society firmly centred around the couple (the nuclear family is considered the norm), but the romantic pair is positioned as the ultimate relationship goal.
As much as the Western world has become liberalised about sex, my academic research indicates most people are still chasing that romantic ideology of "The One" - even if they are delaying the process.
We largely have the freedom to choose how, when, where and with whom we have sex.
Yet most of us still desire that lifelong romantic commitment to do it in.
Being single eventually gets difficult. It not only has a stigma attached to it, but it gets harder as you get older and people start to pair off (how many times can you be the third or fifth wheel?).
It might be okay to be single in your 20s - you might be studying, focusing on work, or travel - but being single in your 30s and beyond is a major stress for most, particularly when friends and family have children and spend more time with similar couples.
When matching up couples for Married at First Sight, I was surprised by how many younger applicants there were.
At 25, or even 30, have you really exhausted all your options?
Or is it that the pressure to find The One and settle down is so powerful you're willing to put your destiny in the hands of relationship experts and go on a televised social experiment to find it?
It's often taken as "normal" or natural to need to be paired off.
But the prominence placed on this for not only our intimate relationships, but in some ways for our whole society requires some critical analysis.
For example, monogamy is not a requirement for sex, love, or procreation - but we've been led to believe it is.
Historically, monogamy has put controls on sexual conduct as well as helping keep track of which offspring is whose - and who is financially responsible for them.
As religious and moral discourses have softened in favour of secularism and liberalism, I'm surprised how strongly the traditional concept of love, as tied to marriage and lifelong coupledom, remains intact.
I'm not saying we shouldn't choose to commit to one person, but I wonder if we're long overdue for some diversity and plurality in our options.
Recent research I undertook on casual sex revealed a hierarchy of respectability that structures our sexual behaviour.
The hierarchy of sex/relationships, from most ideal to least ideal was, at the pinnacle: monogamous relationships with The One; monogamous relationships; dating in search of The One; long-term casual sex relationships, aka friends with benefits; a one-night stand; and finally, at the bottom, the booty call.
Notably, in this hierarchy, the more emotionally involved or committed a sexual relationship, the higher its status.
Although sex ostensibly holds an important position in determining relationships and commitment - here it was the "emotional" involvement, the involvement beyond sex, that increased the status and meaning of a relationship.
It would seem, in the contemporary context, emotional intimacy is our new moral compass. It's how we judge the worth of intimate relationships.
So, what does this mean for coupledom and marriage? Do we get the emotional intimacy we dream of? Can such emotional intimacy continue despite the pressures of working, having children as well as the other family obligations, and stand the test of time?
And, most intriguing, through Three's new social experiment, can our Married at First Sight participants find the emotional connection that could bind them for life?